ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

Leveson Report

Robert Buckland: When she expects the Leveson report to be published.

Maria Miller: I expect Lord Justice Leveson to deliver his report by the end of the month. The inquiry team will make an announcement about specific times later this morning.

Robert Buckland: If the Leveson inquiry recommends an end to the current system of press regulation, will the Government rise to the challenge and help to create a system that will quickly gain the trust of the public?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right to identify trust as an overwhelming prerequisite for any solution to our problems involving the press. Certainly the status quo is not an option. The principles that will drive any solution are the need for an independent regulator, the need for tough regulation, and the need to do everything possible to preserve free speech.

Ben Bradshaw: Given that both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who set up the inquiry, have stressed time and again the importance of giving Lord Leveson space in which to report and not prejudging the outcome, how helpful is it for colleagues of the Prime Minister, in the Cabinet and elsewhere, to make repeated comments in an attempt to undermine the report in advance?

Maria Miller: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for endorsing the importance of the report, and I join him in doing so. We must ensure that we look at the facts and the judgment of the inquiry. Comments expressing concern are coming from many quarters, but I urge everyone to wait and not to prejudge the findings of the inquiry, which will be forthcoming very shortly.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to study Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations very carefully, but that any decision affecting the freedom of the press is so important that it should be made only by Parliament? Does she accept that there is now almost total agreement that we need a new, independent regulator with tough powers, but that the decision on whether there should be any legislative back-up involving statute is of such huge importance that we need to be absolutely certain that there is no alternative before proceeding down that route?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right to talk about the importance of the freedom of the press, but we must also ensure that there is robust and full redress for victims. Those are the things that we must balance, and that is why I think that it would be entirely appropriate for us to have discussions, whether in the Chamber or elsewhere in the House.

Harriet Harman: I agree with Members who have said that this issue is of enormous importance. Like me, the Secretary of State had an opportunity to meet victims of phone hacking and press intrusion yesterday.
	The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) was absolutely right to say that this is a matter for the House. In that context, may I ask the Secretary of State whether she intends to make a statement to the House on the day on which the Leveson report is published, and also whether she will ensure that the Government provide an early opportunity for the House to debate it? I have already asked for cross-party Front-Bench talks, but this is also a matter of great interest and importance for Back Benchers in all parts of the House.

Maria Miller: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for the opportunity to clarify the position. She and I have already had discussions about this very issue. I hope that we will continue to have such discussions, and that they can involve the other parties as well. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to make things clearer in his business statement later today.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State will recall that the Leveson inquiry started as a result of the phone hacking scandal. Is she aware of recent evidence that journalists were using information like a trading commodity, one of them picking up the hack and then passing it to another to disguise the source of the hacking? Will Leveson cover that aspect?

Maria Miller: Obviously Lord Leveson has been looking at this issue in an enormous amount of detail, and criminal investigations are also in progress. I am sure that the specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, and indeed many other issues relating to the prevalence of phone hacking, will be dealt with in Lord Leveson’s inquiry report, which, as I have said, will be available very shortly.

4G Network

Andrew Selous: When 4G network services will be rolled out in (a) England and Wales and (b) Central Bedfordshire.

Edward Vaizey: EE is already deploying 4G services in 11 cities, and will be doing so in five more before the end of the year. We expect further 4G services to become available by mid-summer. It will of course be for the operators to decide when they will become available in Central Bedfordshire.

Andrew Selous: My constituency is only 34 miles north of the House of Commons, yet large parts of it, such as the village of Studham, have almost no mobile phone coverage. Many complaints have been raised with me about that, particularly by people running businesses and working from home. Will 4G help them?

Edward Vaizey: 4G should be helpful to them in the next few years, but I would also say that we take the issue of partial not spots, where there is not universal coverage, very seriously. That is one reason why we are looking at making it easier to deploy mobile phone masts and increase mobile phone coverage, particularly in areas such as the one described by my hon. Friend.

David Hanson: Has the Minister seen reports this week showing that the failure to roll out 4G speedily will cost £120 million at Christmas alone—in sales just next month? Does he accept that the Government’s failure to deliver 4G speedily has an economic impact? Will he indicate when 4G will be available in my area and throughout the Principality of Wales?

Edward Vaizey: The spectrum for the 4G services that are going to be auctioned only became available when we completed the digital television switchover in October. We followed the previous Government’s timetable for that, so if anyone is to blame for the delay, it is them.

First World War (Commemoration)

Damian Collins: What plans she has to ensure a suitable commemoration of the centenary of the first world war.

Maria Miller: We have announced a series of measures to commemorate the centenary of the first world war. The Government’s programme will focus on the key themes of remembrance, education and youth. It will include national commemorative events, a major remodelling of the Imperial War museum, support for school visits to the battlefields and a special grants programme from the Heritage Lottery Fund to support young people in community projects.

Damian Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for that. Does she agree that it is particularly important to support community projects, especially those such as the Step Short project in Folkestone, which is working to commemorate the lives of the 10 million men who passed through the fort, going to and from the trenches, during the first world war?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the importance of local events, and I urge all hon. Members to examine the connection between their area and the first world war. It is by bringing it to life in this
	very local and personal way that we can give this commemoration the importance it needs. The Government are investing more than £50 million in projects such as the refurbishment of the Imperial War museum, but we will also be doing an awful lot more at a community level.

Access to the Arts

Tristram Hunt: What assessment she has made of access to the arts in each region.

Edward Vaizey: My Department’s Taking Part survey shows high levels of access to the arts in all regions of England; the figures are 78.9% in England overall and 74.5% in the west midlands.

Tristram Hunt: First, may I pay tribute to the great work the Minister is doing on the Wedgwood museum? However, as a result of the extraordinary and disproportionate cuts to local authority budgets, great museums such as the Potteries museum and art gallery in Stoke-on-Trent face a funding and scholarship crisis. In a recent letter to The Guardian, the chair of Arts Council England, Liz Forgan, said that bodies such as hers cannot fill the vacuum. What talks is the Minister having with that great aesthete and lover of the arts the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make sure that our great cities and regions continue to have access to great art?

Edward Vaizey: I met the great lover of the arts’ junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), only yesterday, and my Department has regular communications with the Department for Communities and Local Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we managed to keep the cuts to national portfolio organisations down to 15% or less, and we have massively increased the national lottery share for the arts. However, we do, of course, take concerns about local authority funding seriously.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Minister agree that funding for the arts through the national lottery has vastly increased because of the changes made by this Government?

Edward Vaizey: Absolutely. We increased the share for the arts and for heritage from 16% to 20%, which means that the arts will get hundreds of millions of pounds more of lottery funding.

Harriet Harman: The Minister’s Department is responsible for the arts, which are so important to not only our culture, but jobs and growth. The Government have already cut funding for the Arts Council by 30% and abolished the regional development agencies, which supported arts in the regions. Now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has said, local government, which has always been such an important support for arts locally, is struggling with huge central Government cuts to its budgets. That is set to have a catastrophic impact on the arts in local communities, with some
	councils set to end their funding of local arts altogether. Will the Minister make an immediate detailed assessment of local government cuts in arts funding and place a copy in the House of Commons Library?

Edward Vaizey: It is an honour to answer a question from the right hon. and learned Lady, but I simply do not recognise the picture she paints. The arts are in a very healthy state in this country, as I said. We have maintained significant funding for the arts and for our national museums and heritage. We have substantially increased lottery funding for the arts and heritage. I will, of course, continue to engage with local authorities on this important issue.

BBC Licence Fee

Peter Bone: If she will bring forward proposals to reduce the BBC licence fee.

Maria Miller: It is right that the BBC should play its part in making savings alongside all other public sector organisations. The Government have delivered a real-term reduction in the BBC licence fee by freezing it at its current level until March 2017.

Peter Bone: I do not think the Secretary of State quite answered my question, but clearly we are not going to get a cut in the licence fee, as requested. May I make it much easier for her? The Secretary of State believes that everybody loves the BBC, so why make it compulsory to pay the licence fee? Why not just make it a subscription channel?

Maria Miller: I would never want to fall out with my hon. Friend, but I think that is exactly what I did say: we have already brought forward proposals to ensure that the BBC licence fee is, in effect, reduced by freezing it. I hope that he will welcome that and, of course, we will always strive to ensure that the organisation brings forth value for money.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Secretary of State will know that the BBC World Service is to be funded from the licence fee in due course. Whatever else happens, will she ensure that the World Service is not in any way jeopardised and that its ability to serve our national interest and to provide services to many viewers and listeners across the world is not reduced?

Maria Miller: The World Service has a unique role to play in broadcasting on a global level. The hon. Gentleman can have my assurance that we will continue to value that in the future, though the changes to funding that have been made are important.

John Leech: May I urge the Secretary of State to resist any calls for a reduction in the licence fee? The BBC has already faced significant cuts to valued services, such as local radio, as a result of the budget constraints. Surely this is just yet another attack on the BBC by its enemies, at a time when it should be focusing its attention on getting its own house in order.

Maria Miller: There must be recognition of the fact that the BBC received £3.6 billion in licence fee in this year alone. My hon. Friend is right to say that we cannot put the quality and standing of the BBC anywhere other than at the top of the pile, but when it comes to ensuring that we get value for the significant amount of money coming from the licence fee payer, it is right that that pressure should be there.

Tour de France

Jason McCartney: What support her Department is giving to bids for the Tour de France to come to the UK in 2014.

Edward Vaizey: UK Sport and British Cycling are discussing potential bids to host stages of the event around the UK in 2014. We have asked UK Sport to assess the strategic importance and financial viability of the bids and to provide support as necessary.

Jason McCartney: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Yorkshire bid for the Tour de France in 2014 and its potential route over Holme Moss in my constituency will be given equal support and funding to the Scottish bid? May I invite my hon. Friend to come and have a look at Holme Moss, which is the most picturesque part of the world and would make a superb stage for the Tour de France?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend is aware that we believe that the best chance of success will be to submit a single bid and we have reached out to Yorkshire to ask them to take part in a national bid. Anything he can do to help would be most welcome. I was grateful for his intervention, but I think it would be more appropriate for the Minister for Sport, to whom I spoke yesterday. He is keen to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Minister also reach out to Shropshire? As he will know, the national cycle network goes through the county, and he has visited the Wrekin, the wonderful landmark in Shropshire. Will he continue his conversations with the Minister for Sport and ensure that the Tour de France comes through that beautiful county?

Edward Vaizey: I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and can confirm its beauty. As I am standing in as proxy for the Minister for Sport, may I also confirm his acceptance of the invitation to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency?

Spending on Sport (Gender Audit)

Barbara Keeley: What plans her Department has for a gender audit of public spending on sport.

Maria Miller: The Department measures sport participation by gender via the Taking Part survey. In addition, Sport England’s Active People survey provides more detailed data on sport participation. Together,
	those provide a good understanding of the gender implications of public spending on sport. The Department has no plans to undertake a specific gender audit.

Barbara Keeley: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Active People survey shows that more than 2 million fewer girls and women than men take part in sport, at both weekly and monthly intervals, but 12 million say that they want to take part in sport. Is not it time we had a full audit of public spending on sport to find out what it is spent on and why so many fewer women than men take part?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady puts her finger on it. We know that there are participation issues, so rather than simply continuing to audit it, we are taking action. We already have our £1 billion youth and community sports strategy, which is looking at ways of ensuring that girls take part in sport, and the Active Women programme, a £10 million lottery programme aimed at getting women into sport. Of course, the most important audit of all was the Olympic games this summer, in which the very first gold medal was won by a woman, as indeed was the last. That is evidence that things are moving in the right direction, but clearly there is still more to do.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Is it important to build on the success of the Olympics, particularly in participation, but the reason a survey is important is that we are seeing a drop in the number of girls involved in school sport, so there is a need to measure what is happening. I think the Secretary of State should speak with the Secretary of State for Education, who does not seem to like sport.

Maria Miller: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I speak regularly with the Secretary of State for Education on this and many other issues and to ensure that we continue the excellent work of the school games, which has done so much not only to improve girls’ participation in sport, but to help more disabled people get involved.

Digital Television Reception (Baxenden)

Graham Jones: What steps her Department is taking to address problems with digital television reception in Baxenden.

Edward Vaizey: There are a few factors that could affect reception in Baxenden, but I gather that the most likely cause is a wind farm—I do not know whether that information is available to the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes).

Graham Jones: I am grateful to the Minister, who is up to date on the matter. Baxenden, of course, has a weak signal from the Winter Hill transmitter, which has been identified by his Department as one of those that will be most adversely affected by the 4G roll-out. That will affect my constituency because the weak signal spans right across it. He is correct, because over the weekend scientific evidence indicated that the wind farm was the problem. I add that more turbines would probably alleviate the situation. What will he do to
	clarify the legal responsibility in this case and how my residents can get compensation in cases where it could be the wind farm or 4G that is the cause?

Edward Vaizey: As I understand it, mitigating the impact of the wind farm is the responsibility of its operator, which is now communicating with residents and providing solutions, such as moving aerials so that they can pick up signals from the alternative transmitter. As he correctly says, interference is not caused by 4G, because of course the 4G that could interfere with digital televisions signals has not yet been deployed.

Lottery Good Causes

Fiona Mactaggart: If she will take steps to accelerate the repayment of moneys taken from lottery good causes funds to support the London 2012 Olympic games; and if she will make a statement.

Maria Miller: The Government have put in place a new legal agreement with the Greater London authority ensuring that the £675 million that the lottery will receive from Olympic park land sales will be returned to the lottery earlier than previously planned.

Fiona Mactaggart: The point is this: when? The Olympic delivery third quarter report stated that the centrally held contingency funding remaining in the package will be transferred to the national lottery distribution fund for the benefit of lottery good causes. Those good causes, which are being hit by Government cuts and squeezes in philanthropy following the recession, want to know when they will get the money and how much interest they will be paid.

Maria Miller: I understand the hon. Lady’s concern with the plans that were put in place by the Government of whom she was a part and the timing of the programme we inherited. That is why we have made sure that the money will be repaid earlier. If she wants further details on that, which is quite complex, perhaps I can write to her.

Stuart Andrew: Lottery funding helped the Olympics to generate unprecedented levels of enthusiasm in sport, and was one of the factors that brought together a community sport group, a school, a college, a local residents group and a developer in my constituency to create a sports park for all who live there. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet representatives of those organisations to see how we can make this dream a reality?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the important role the Olympics played as a catalyst in making people aware of the importance of having the right facilities available in local areas, and we have made it one of the key parts of our legacy programme to make sure those facilities flourish. I would be happy to hear more about the initiative my hon. Friend mentions.

Pete Wishart: Taking money from lottery-supported good causes was about the worst possible way to pay for the Olympics.
	The Secretary of State now has the opportunity to put this right. There is a £377 million underspend. Will she now pledge to return that money to good causes as soon as possible?

Maria Miller: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think the role the lottery played in the delivery of the Olympics was absolutely right. He raises an important point, however, about rebalancing the lottery. As he will know, we have already put measures in place to do that and to bring forward this important repayment.

Superfast Broadband

Chi Onwurah: What assessment she has made of the progress of the rural superfast broadband programme.

Edward Vaizey: We are making good progress, and I can confirm the good news, which I know the hon. Lady will welcome, that the European Commission has now approved the UK umbrella state aid notification. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] A cheer for Europe in this Chamber is a thing of rare beauty, and we will continue, therefore, to progress our rural broadband programme.

Chi Onwurah: But the Minister for communications cannot hide the complete “comnishambles” over which he is presiding. That is why state aid approval was delayed for so many months. We have a multi-million pound superfast broadband process with no competitors. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that there is effective competition in the delivery of superfast broadband, so British consumers and businesses get the choice they deserve?

Edward Vaizey: I agree with the hon. Lady that we have a multi-million pound superfast broadband programme, and it is going to deliver superfast broadband to 90% of the country. I cannot make companies compete for these funds, but we do have a robust process in place to ensure value for money, and we are proceeding apace.

Charlie Elphicke: Will Ministers consider prioritising not spots for the roll-out, such as the village of Denton in my constituency, which has shamefully been neglected by BT, as well as areas that have poor mobile reception, such as St Margaret’s and Kingsdown, which get French mobile phone signals?

Edward Vaizey: For the 4G auction, we have put in place a 98% coverage obligation. Getting broadband to the village of Denton will, of course, be part of the Kent rural broadband programme, so it will be a matter for my hon. Friend to discuss with his county council.

Helen Goodman: The Government chose to abandon Labour’s target of universal broadband access by 2012, and last week Ofcom published figures that showed that 10% of the population— 5 million people—have no access to broadband whatever. The problem is especially bad in rural areas, where access is 50% worse than in urban areas. In north
	Lincolnshire, only one person in five has access to broadband, and in Ceredigion the proportion is one person in four. Whatever happened to the party of the countryside?

Edward Vaizey: We did not abandon Labour’s pledge; Labour’s pledge was unaffordable and it was unclear how it was going to be paid for. We have put in place a much better pledge—to deliver superfast broadband—and we have among the highest penetration of internet access in the world.

Duncan Hames: I congratulate the Government on getting this state aid approval. The Minister will be aware that some telephone exchanges serve residents and premises that cross local authority boundaries, so will he encourage authorities to work together even when they are not in the same consortiums, to ensure residents served by those exchanges are properly supported?

Edward Vaizey: We are certainly encouraging that, and a number of counties are working together, including Devon and Somerset, and Herefordshire and Gloucestershire. We will continue to encourage that where it is appropriate.

Cultural Sector (Merseyside)

Alison McGovern: What assessment she has made of the cultural sector in Merseyside.

Edward Vaizey: Our most recent survey data show that last year, nearly 80% of adults in the north-west engaged with the arts and 4.9 million people visited DCMS-sponsored museums. Between 2010 and 2015, the Arts Council will invest £44 million in Merseyside organisations and £140 million across the north-west. National Museums Liverpool will receive £109 million in grant in aid.

Alison McGovern: I never get tired of hearing how successful the cultural sector is in Merseyside, so I thank the Minister for his answer. However, he knows as well as I do that National Museums is not the same as the support that local authorities formerly gave and that before the disastrous cuts that they now face, leaders in Merseyside had been able to support the arts, so why will he not answer the question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)? Why will he not say to us today that he will undertake a survey of local authority cuts and place that information about the arts in the House of Commons Library?

Edward Vaizey: The reason the hon. Lady does not get tired of hearing about the success of Merseyside’s arts organisations is that they are astonishingly successful. Liverpool had an incredible year as the European city of culture, its central library is being refurbished, it opened the first national museum for a century, the Liverpool Everyman is benefiting from a £28 million refurbishment, and only recently the Royal Court received a grant of £867,000 for its refurbishment.

Luciana Berger: One of Merseyside’s creative industry strengths is our video games sector. Will the Minister please update the House on the progress that his Government are making towards introducing a video games tax relief?

Edward Vaizey: I am delighted to have the opportunity to remind the House that we are introducing an important tax credit for the video games industry. Our negotiations with the European Commission are going very well and we are, I hope, still on target to introduce it next April.

Tourism

Andrew Bingham: What steps she is taking to increase the effects of tourism on the economy.

Maria Miller: Tourism is a key priority for the Government. That is why we are funding VisitBritain’s biggest ever global tourism initiative, the GREAT campaign, which is expected to create 4.6 million extra visitors, £2.3 billion additional spend and nearly 60,000 jobs over the next four years. In addition, a major domestic campaign by VisitEngland is expected to create 12,000 jobs over three years, with £500 million extra spent by tourists.

Andrew Bingham: Recent research has shown that tourism in Buxton in my constituency of High Peak generated a massive £72 million for the local economy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates not only the huge financial and employment benefits of an effective tourism industry, but the fact that these benefits spread out to surrounding areas and all parts of the local economy, even those that would not necessarily be associated with tourism?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend should not be surprised at that level of tourism in his area, given the fantastic international festivals, the wonderful Georgian architecture of Buxton and the way that it has inspired so much creativity over the generations. All Members of the House should be looking at the way that tourism can help to support their own local economies because it has such potential for growth.

Lilian Greenwood: What discussions has the Secretary of State held with Ministers in the Department for Transport regarding the needs of coach operators and the vital role that they can play in promoting tourism?

Maria Miller: As I said earlier, the role of domestic tourism is more important at present than even international tourism so connectivity through trains, coaches and our road network is a vital part of making sure that we maximise that. I will take a particular look at any issues that the hon. Lady wants to raise with me with regard to coach travel because it is clearly an important part of the domestic market.

Mark Pawsey: My constituency is the only place in the world to have given its name to an international game and we are working hard to derive an economic benefit from this by attracting visitors to the town. May I extend an invitation to the Secretary
	of State to join together her responsibilities for tourism and sport by visiting Rugby as it prepares for visitors during the rugby world cup, which is being held in England in 2015?

Maria Miller: Again, my hon. Friend demonstrates the fact that tourism can play a role in a wide variety of towns—Rugby is, I think, the second largest town in the country. I will look carefully at any proposal to come and support the rugby world cup.

Chris Bryant: If one goes on holiday to Poland, France or Italy, it is nice to be greeted in the hotel by a receptionist who is from Poland, France or Italy. The same does not often happen in the United Kingdom. Is it not time that the British hospitality and tourism industries did more to enable young British people to get jobs in British hotels?

Maria Miller: What is important is that hoteliers are able to use people who are best placed to support the visitors who stay in those hotels, whether those are young British people or people from other countries as well. I do not recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

Henry Smith: In welcoming the Government’s tourism strategy, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say a little more about how communities who are close to major gateways such as Gatwick airport can benefit from tourism so that people can enjoy, in my local case, the fantastic entertainment and retail facilities in Crawley and the beautiful countryside of west Sussex?

Maria Miller: It is right to point out that many areas of the country could be benefiting even more from tourism. That is why we are putting record levels of spend behind our domestic campaign to encourage people to consider Britain as the place for their holidays or short breaks.

Topical Questions

Simon Hughes: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Maria Miller: As hon. Members will have noticed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is not with us for oral questions. He is currently in Rio de Janeiro leading a delegation to share London’s knowledge and expertise with our Brazilian counterparts, helping them to prepare for the World cup in 2014 and the Olympics and Paralympics in 2016—and, importantly, banging the drum for British business. With £70 million of contracts already won for UK companies in Rio, we are continuing to deliver an economic legacy for the UK from the most successful games of modern times.

Simon Hughes: Rio in November—it must be a hard life!
	There is often lots of conversation about the difficulties of broadband access in rural areas. What can Ministers do to help people in urban areas such as mine, where
	in Rotherhithe, for example, people are not near the telephone exchange and broadband is therefore very poor indeed?

Maria Miller: The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue with which many people in the Chamber will identify. Urban areas by no means always receive the sort of connectivity that our constituents want. That is why it is important that we have put in place not only the rural broadband programme to deliver better connectivity in rural areas but the urban broadband fund for our urban areas, which will ensure that London has some £25 million to achieve the improvements that he talks about.

Clive Efford: The “Chance to Shine” survey published this week shows that the majority of parents who were surveyed—54%—said that since the Olympics their children have played less than two hours of sport and PE per week. Participation in sport in school is on the way down. The PE and sports survey published in 2010 told us that over 90% of schoolchildren were doing sport in schools. If we are to have any chance of instilling a sporting habit for life in our young children, we will have to start in schools. Will the Minister tell us what the Government intend to do to monitor what is going on in our schools?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we have to instil that habit of sport at the earliest age. As I have said before, I share his concern about participation levels among young people. We will be looking carefully at the findings from the “Chance to Shine” survey. I have already talked to him and to other Members about the school games, in which 50% of schools have participated, and through our youth sport strategy £1 billion is going towards supporting further participation. I hope that he will welcome those facts.

Bob Blackman: The London Olympics and Paralympics were clearly an outstanding success delivered on time and within budget, with an outstanding performance by Great Britain. Now comes the long-term challenge of delivering the legacy. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the position as regards progress in dismantling some of the venues that are due to be moved elsewhere so that everyone can enjoy that success?

Maria Miller: The decommissioning of venues is already well under way, with the transference of temporary venues to new owners, whether it is the volleyball courts or the beach volleyball courts that were just round the corner from here, from which the sand has been taken and used to create tens of new volleyball courts throughout London, including one in Wimbledon park.

Stephen Timms: The Conservative party used to support a competitive telecommunications market. Why on earth are Ministers now establishing a new private sector monopoly in rural superfast broadband by simply handing all the Government subsidy over to BT?

Edward Vaizey: I cannot keep on making this point, but I will. We are not handing the
	money to BT. It is a competitive tendering process, and if BT wins the contracts that local authorities put out, that is a matter for those local authorities.

Jason McCartney: My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) mentioned the rugby world cup in 2015. I must just clarify that he was referring to the rugby union world cup. The rugby league world cup is happening next year. Switching to football, do Ministers accept the case for introducing, on a trial basis, limited standing areas at football grounds for premiership and championship clubs whose management want to participate?

Edward Vaizey: We believe that seated stadiums offer the best experience for spectators and the best safety measures. That view is supported by the Government, the police and the sport.

Nicholas Dakin: Given the importance of the high standards and diversity in our media, will the communications Bill include any Leveson inquiry recommendations on media and cross-media ownership?

Maria Miller: We have always made it clear that we will take Lord Leveson’s thoughts and findings into account as we draw the Bill together.

Robin Walker: I recently attended Worcester’s Gheluvelt park for a moving service to mark the 98th anniversary of the battle of Gheluvelt, at which the Worcestershire Regiment stopped the Prussian guard and stabilised the western front. As the 100th anniversary of those heroic actions draws near, what can the Secretary of State do to ensure that local connections with the first world war will be properly recognised amidst the national commemorations?

Maria Miller: An important part of the work that we will do to commemorate the first world war will be to ensure that every community, and indeed every individual, has the opportunity to find their own story, whether they have overseas connections or not. The Heritage Lottery Fund will be important in delivering the finances for that.

Fiona Mactaggart: We have talked in this Question Time about the contribution of schools to developing sporting activities among children. Schools are also key to developing creativity among children, and Britain leads the world in the creative industries. Will the Secretary of State meet the Secretary of State for Education to discuss the effect of the EBacc plans on creative subjects in the curriculum, and to ensure that creativity is part of our children’s education?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady needs to understand that the English baccalaureate has creativity at its heart. It includes English, maths, science, history, geography and languages, and will give students the opportunity to explore the heritage of this country’s literature. Sitting alongside that, the 123 new music hubs that have been established will ensure that creativity is at the heart of our children’s education.

Priti Patel: Essex is an important engine of economic growth in the United Kingdom. Businesses in our county are being held back by poor broadband infrastructure, and yet we have been placed 31st out of 35 on the Broadband Delivery UK project framework. Will the Secretary of State support local businesses in Essex by prioritising the roll-out of high-speed broadband?

Edward Vaizey: Essex has been awarded £6 million for its rural broadband programme. Although it is low on the list because of when it submitted its application to BDUK, we will work with Essex and a lot of work can be done before procurement.

Alex Cunningham: There has been a huge increase in the number of betting shops opening in generic shopping units and the subsequent installation of the high-stake, high-price fixed odds betting terminals, which contribute to gambling addiction. Will the Secretary of State meet the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to agree a policy that places betting shops in a specific planning category to stop the increase in betting shops and high-stake machines? Will she carry out an investigation into the impact of those machines on gambling addiction?

Maria Miller: On the final part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, we believe that there is a need for more evidence on the impact of gambling within society. We are collecting that evidence now and are looking carefully at all the issues that he raised.

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and Ofcom for the auction arrangements, which satisfy all the mobile phone operators. However, will Ministers reassure the House that planning guidance will be put in place to enable mobile operators to introduce higher masts and bring about 4G roll-out much more quickly?

Edward Vaizey: We are looking at the planning regulations on mobile phone masts. We will bring forward proposals and consult on them in the appropriate manner. My hon. Friend’s point is well made. If we want to benefit from 4G, we have to make it easier to deploy networks.

Ben Bradshaw: I was concerned by the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been taking evidence in its inquiry into the creative industries. Every single witness has said that the Government’s plans for the EBacc will be devastating for the arts and culture. The Secretary of State must be the champion for arts and culture in government and must ask the Education Secretary to think again.

Maria Miller: The right hon. Gentleman needs to understand that as well as Ebacc’s creative content, many things are going on around that in schools. The issue has been carefully considered by Ofsted, which assesses the cultural development of individuals in schools. That is at the heart of what we are doing.

Therese Coffey: Today is the feast day of Saint Cecilia, the patron saint of music, and it also marks the launch of celebrations in Aldeburgh for Benjamin Britten’s centenary year. Will the Secretary of State join me next year at the Red House to celebrate one of our greatest ever composers?

Edward Vaizey: I have already accepted a number of invitations on behalf of the sports Minister, and I am happy to confirm that the Secretary of State will, I am sure, make it to Aldeburgh next year to celebrate the centenary of one of our greatest composers who children will learn about in school, particularly after we publish our national cultural education plan—the first of its kind in our history.

Luciana Berger: Does the Department plan any legislative changes to the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, and if so, when?

Edward Vaizey: I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that the Government are doing an enormous amount to help libraries. We have given responsibility for libraries to the Arts Council, which has set up a £6 million fund to support them, and we have appointed a new libraries adviser, Yinnon Ezra. We are piloting the compulsory membership of libraries for schoolchildren and we have the Seighart review on e-lending. We continue strongly to support libraries. This is not about legislation, it is about action.

Guy Opperman: Under the previous Government, broadband provision in Northumberland was woeful, disorganised and underfunded. That situation is slowly improving, which brings great benefits. Will the Minister meet me—rather than the sports Minister having that pleasure—and fellow representatives in Northumberland, to discuss how we can improve the provision of broadband in Northumberland?

Edward Vaizey: As a matter of principle I never refuse a meeting with an hon. Member under my portfolio, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend—in fact, I would be delighted.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Unemployment

Alison McGovern: What assessment she has made of the differential effect of unemployment across age groups.

Tom Blenkinsop: What assessment she has made of the differential effect of unemployment across age groups.

Susan Elan Jones: What assessment she has made of the differential effect of unemployment across age groups.

Esther McVey: Over the past year, unemployment has fallen in every age group and the number of people in work has risen by more than half a million.

Alison McGovern: The Minister’s answer concerns me slightly because in my constituency surgery I have heard from women in the 50-to-64 age group who are finding the labour market very tough. I believe that we have seen a recent increase in unemployment of more than 20% in that age group. What will the Minister do to help older women get back to work?

Esther McVey: The hon. Lady represents the constituency next to mine and we should both celebrate the fact that employment figures are up for every age group, locally, nationally and regionally. The unemployment rate for people over 50 is 4.5%, and for women over 50 it is 3.5%. Those figures are lower than the total unemployment rate of 7.8%. I would question your facts.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure the Minister is not questioning my facts, but I think I have the gist of what she is saying.

Tom Blenkinsop: Over the past two years, long-term unemployment among young women increased by 412% on Teesside, with 640 women aged 24 and under claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months. Does the Minister agree with figures from the Office for National Statistics which show that under this Government, long-term youth unemployment among women on Teesside has skyrocketed, and what will she do about it?

Esther McVey: I believe that is only part of the story, and in the past, false breaks in unemployment statistics—particularly under the new deal—skewed figures. The Work programme has removed that anomaly, providing a true reflection of the facts. Youth unemployment is down, and the Government are doing significant things to help with 250,000 more work experience places, 160,000 more wage incentives, and 20,000 more apprenticeship grants. We are doing as much as we possibly can and, as I said, unemployment is significantly down under this Government.

Susan Elan Jones: Youth unemployment in Clwyd South is up 157% from this time last year. Does she accept that her weasel words simply will not wash with those young people, and will she confirm how the Government intend to help them? Surely the Government should take the utmost action to get them back into work.

Esther McVey: They are not weasel words. Clwyd South’s statistics show that unemployment is down whether for 18 to 24-year-olds or for all claimant counts. We are doing significant work to support young people.

Jane Ellison: It is extremely concerning for all hon. Members when young people are unemployed. Enormous numbers of jobs have been created in London in the past 10-plus years, and yet some young people have been left behind. Does that not highlight the fact
	that we must approach the problem from the point of view of education and skills, rather than pretending, as the Opposition do, that the problem started in 2010?

Esther McVey: I agree with my hon. Friend absolutely. For clarification, the unemployment figures for young people are affected by the rising proportion of people in education rather than in the labour market. Those who have left education and are unemployed in the 16 to 24-year-old population is 9%, which is lower than in the recessions of the ’90s and the ’80s. We are doing more than ever before for the youth of today.

Amber Rudd: Youth unemployment in Hastings has fallen by 16% in the past year, which I welcome. Is the Minister happy with how youth unemployment is assessed? Some of my constituents find it confusing that young people in full-time education are still classified as unemployed.

Esther McVey: I agree with my hon. Friend—I referred to that in my previous answer. We need to get the statistics right. As I said, 9% of the total 16 to 24-year-old population are unemployed. We have put more in place than ever before to help that group of people.

Harriett Baldwin: May I declare an interest in the employment of women aged between 50 and 64? Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that the unemployment rate in that group is, at 3.5%, the lowest rate of unemployment for any group of women? Some 3.5 million women in that age group are employed, which is the highest number ever, and 60.6% is the highest rate of employment for the group.

Esther McVey: I agree with my hon. Friend—that is obviously a very talented group of women. She is correct that 3.5% is lower than before. It is half the total unemployment rate, which is 7.8%.

Kate Green: Last month in Women and Equalities questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said she did not accept that the figure of 50% unemployment among young black men was accurate. On 24 October, in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), Glen Watson of the UK Statistics Authority confirmed that the figure is actually 52%. I listened carefully to the answers the Minister gave a moment ago about the definition of the unemployment rate. Is she saying that she does not accept the official figures? What will the Government do about the scandalously high level of black youth unemployment?

Esther McVey: We are doing a lot about this. Again, unemployment for that group is under a third—the figures the hon. Lady presents do not include people who are in education.

Workplace Diversity

Lilian Greenwood: What steps she is taking to support women and minority groups in the workplace.

Jo Swinson: In the current economic circumstances, we need more than ever to maximise the full potential of the diverse talents in our work force. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed last week that we will legislate to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, ensuring that the benefits of flexibility are available as widely as possible. In addition, more than 50 leading employers are signed up to our “Think, Act, Report” initiative, covering more than 1 million employees.

Lilian Greenwood: The Government state that the new employment tribunal fees for claims relating to the national minimum wage will attract the lowest level of fee—£390—yet the average payout to workers who make a claim enforcing the minimum wage is just £165, which is less than half the cost of pursuing a claim under the new fee structure. Does the Minister agree that the new system of employment tribunal fees will unfairly punish women, disabled people, and black and ethnic minority workers, who are disproportionately represented among the low paid?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady raises the issue of access to justice, which I agree is important. That is why, in addition to the fee regime, there will be a remissions regime, which will mean that the people on the lowest incomes will not have to pay. The key point to remember about employment tribunals, highlighted by the figure she gave on the average payout in those minimum wage cases, is that they are often not the best route to resolving disputes. That is why the Government are legislating to make sure that there is more early conciliation, so that for employers and employees alike the stress, time and money involved in employment tribunals can be avoided in all but the most necessary circumstances.

Anne McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend look at the cohort of older women who are being asked to work longer before they can claim their state pension? They are particularly difficult to place in the workplace. What measures will the Government consider to assist them?

Jo Swinson: This group of women is very talented and we need to be using their talents in the economy. The additional plans for flexibility are helpful not just for those with caring responsibilities for young children, but for people as they get closer to retirement age. Rather than falling off the cliff of working full time and immediately going into full retirement, being able to reduce hours and work flexibly can be helpful in that transition.

Yvette Cooper: The Synod rejection of women bishops will have deeply disappointed the talented women who work in the Church of England, the vast majority of Church members who had expressed their support, and those in Parliament and across the country who supported women bishops. Does the Minister agree that we should urge the Church to look again at this swiftly, and that it cannot be left to lie for another five years? The Church is the established Church, so the issue affects bishops in Parliament and Parliament has to agree to the changes. She and the Secretary of State will know that many in
	Parliament will feel uncomfortable if new proposals come forward that further water down plans for women bishops, when the majority of those in the Church have already shown their strong support for these plans. Will she ask the Secretary of State to convey to the Church the willingness and readiness of Parliament to work with it and to support the views of the majority of Church members in support of women bishops?

Jo Swinson: The right hon. Lady will know that there is due to be an urgent question shortly, when this issue will be discussed in more detail. Personally, as a strong supporter of women’s equality, I share her disappointment and that of many others. As a Scottish humanist, I recognise that I may not be the best person to tell the Church of England what it should be doing. All our religious institutions are important. She raised the issue of the role of Parliament. She may be aware that I have not been a supporter of all-women shortlists for Parliament. There is an irony in that there is a continuing all-male shortlist as a result of this decision. She is right to highlight that a significant majority in the General Synod supported the move to women bishops. The fact that 95% of dioceses supported it gives some reassurance to those who would like to see this change happen.

Julian Huppert: Women are routinely paid less than men—15% less on average nationally; 23% less in London. However, the Davies report found that organisations with more women on their boards outperformed their rivals by 42% in sales, and significantly on return on capital and on equity. Does my hon. Friend agree that to promote greater equality in the workplace, companies must be far more open about their employment practices so that they have better outcomes?

Jo Swinson: Of course, the pay gap figures have just been updated and published this morning and they have come down slightly, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that they are still too high. My hon. Friend highlights the fact that having more women on boards can help companies’ performance. I encourage employers to sign up to our “Think, Act, Report” initiative, so that they properly use the talents of women within their businesses at all levels.

Paralympic Games (Legacy)

Huw Irranca-Davies: What steps she is taking to ensure that the London 2012 Paralympic games leave a lasting legacy for disabled people across the UK.

Maria Miller: The Paralympics were hugely successful. Now, we must ensure that we convert this success into an Olympic and Paralympic legacy that lasts beyond one great summer. The Government are working with Lord Coe so that the legacy programme delivers real and tangible benefits, including for disabled people.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Paralympic games sent a tremendously positive message across wider society. Does the Minister regret, therefore, that the aim of
	achieving disability equality has been dropped by the Department for Work and Pensions? Is that not a completely contradictory message to send?

Maria Miller: I know from personal experience that at the heart of everything the Department does is giving people an opportunity to play a full role in society and looking at people for what they can do, not what they cannot do. That is exactly what we should be doing to support disabled people into work.

Supporting Women into Work

Charlie Elphicke: What steps she is taking to support more women into work.

Jo Swinson: The Government are taking strong action to support more women into sustainable work. We are delivering the biggest apprenticeships programme our country has ever seen, with more than half going to women. More than 200,000 women started an apprenticeship last year. Our tax cuts for 20 million people on the lowest incomes ensure that work always pays, and our radical reforms to parental leave announced last week will allow more women—and men—to balance their work and caring responsibilities.

Charlie Elphicke: Is it not particularly important that we help partnered mothers with children into the workplace, particularly considering that in 1985 less than 30% of women with children under 3 were in the workplace but today it is nearly 60%?

Jo Swinson: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we help working mothers who wish to work to play a full role in the labour market. That is also about ensuring that fathers who want to play a full role in parenting can do so. The ability to share parental leave between mums and dads in the way they choose, rather than how the Government dictate, is an important step towards achieving that goal.

Stephen Timms: The Minister will be alarmed, as we all are, by the big rise in long-term unemployment among women over 50—up from 50,000 to 62,000 since the election. The Work programme, which is designed to address that, does not seem to be delivering. What more can the Government do?

Jo Swinson: We are looking into this issue in detail, because we want to ensure that this group of women, as with all unemployed people, are supported. The Work programme provides tailored and targeted support to the individual, which is what is needed, and we will report back to the House about what more can be done.

Women Bishops

Diana Johnson: (Urgent Question): Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner make a statement on this week’s decision by the General Synod on women bishops?

Tony Baldry: Yesterday, the Archbishop of Canterbury made it clear at the General Synod of the Church of England that the Church of England could not afford to “hang about” over the issue of women bishops and observed starkly that
	“every day that we fail to resolve this issue…is a day when our credibility in the public eye is likely to diminish”.
	Justin Welby, the Bishop of Durham and the next Archbishop of Canterbury, said:
	“The Church has voted overwhelmingly in favour of the principle. It is a question of finding a way that…is the right way forward.”
	It is important for the House to recognise that there is overwhelming support in the Church of England for women bishops to be consecrated. The draft Measure rejected earlier this week was supported by clear majorities in 42 of the 44 dioceses in England. As I have repeatedly said, it is impossible for me to explain to parliamentary colleagues how a Measure that has had the clear support of 42 out of 44 dioceses failed to pass in the General Synod. Let us take all the votes passed in the General Synod: 324 members voted for women bishops, and 122 against; 94% of the bishops who voted on Tuesday supported the Measure, as did 77% of the House of Clergy; and even in the House of Laity, 64% were in favour. The Measure was lost by a handful of votes among the laity, because for the Measure to pass it had to clear the hurdle of a two-thirds majority in each House of the General Synod.
	Speaking for the whole House, I am sure, my right hon. Friend and fellow Church Commissioner, the Prime Minister, made it clear to the House yesterday that the
	“Church needs to get on with it, as it were, and get with the programme”—[Official Report, 21 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 579.]
	He observed that the Church of England needed a “sharp prod”.
	I appreciate that frustrations exist in the House on this matter—a frustration that I share—and I think that the following needs to be understood. First, this is not an issue that can in any way be parked for the next couple of years or so, while we await another round of Synod elections. It must be understood that this issue needs to be resolved as soon as possible. I hope that it will be convenient for the House if I seek to arrange a meeting in the near future for concerned Members, together with the Bishop of Durham, the archbishop-designate, to explore how this matter can be resolved as speedily as possible.
	There have been some suggestions in the press that it is impossible for the Church of England or General Synod to return to this issue until after a new General Synod has been elected in 2015. That is not correct: the rules prevent the same Measure from being reconsidered by the General Synod without a special procedure. It is perfectly possible for a different and amended Measure to consecrate women bishops to be considered by the
	General Synod. Although this is for the Church of England to resolve, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, I suspect that there will also be those in the Church of England who will wish to consider whether the election process to the General Synod is sufficiently representative, particularly of the laity of the Church of England, as Tuesday’s vote clearly did not reflect the overall and clear consensus of dioceses across England in support of women bishops.
	It is my earnest hope that during the time I serve the Queen—whose appointment I am—this House and the Church of England as Second Church Estates Commissioner it will prove possible for me to bring before this House a Measure that will enable women to be consecrated bishops in the Church of England.

Diana Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to the urgent question, and I know that he is as disappointed as I am at having to speak on this matter today. May I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important matter on the Floor of the House today?
	It appears to me and many others that the theological arguments over women priests—and therefore their position in roles of authority—were settled 20 years ago in the Church of England. The next natural step, on which I think there is agreement across the House, is to see some of the excellent ordained women priests now move into positions of leadership in our Church as bishops. Just as discrimination in the wider community is wrong, as it keeps the talents and abilities of all from flourishing, so it is important in the established Church that the talents, experience and skills of both men and women are used and that the Church is led by the very best, not just those who happen to be male. There should be no stained glass ceiling for women in our Church.
	The Church of England now stands to be left behind by the society it seeks to serve and made to look outdated, irrelevant and frankly eccentric by this decision. It appears that a broad Church is being held to ransom by a few narrow minds, but as the hon. Gentleman said, the vast majority of members of the Church want to see women bishops. He set out clearly the votes that were cast at both diocesan and General Synod level. I was pleased to hear him say that there are questions to be asked about the convoluted decision-making structure in the Church, and in particular about the representative nature of the House of Laity, and whether an overhaul of the electoral system needs to be considered. The decision made by an unrepresentative minority in the House of Laity means that this essential modernisation of the Church of England has potentially been put back for another five years or more, with no guarantee of progress even then.
	In fact, I think positions will become even more difficult. Many campaigners felt that they had offered concessions to accommodate those of different views and will perhaps now take a much less conciliatory approach, as they feel that the concessions have been ignored, with no willingness to compromise. As the Church of England is part of the constitutional settlement of this country, it is important that Parliament has regard to what the decision means for the country and the Church’s role in law making. With the decision made, we now see the entrenchment of the discriminatory
	nature of the 26 places in the upper House reserved for Bishops, who can only be male. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this cannot be right, and that Parliament and the Government have to consider what we should do, especially in light of the Government’s decision to abandon any wider reform of the Lords? Does he further agree that we must also consider whether the exemption from equalities legislation for the Church of England now needs to be re-examined?
	Finally, I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman’s resolve on the need to sort this out as soon as possible, as well as what the Archbishop of Canterbury said. I understand that there will be moves by the Church to spend some time thinking about how to proceed, but it is imperative that those in the all-male group of bishops do not talk just to one another, but work with and alongside senior women in the Church to find a way forward. Unlike the Prime Minister, I think Parliament has a role to play and should now look at doing all it can to support the Church at this time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.

Tony Baldry: I agree with almost all that the hon. Lady said. The really important point is that the whole House wants the Church of England to get on with this matter. It cannot be parked, and work needs to be done urgently to try to ensure that it is resolved as quickly as possible. In fairness, the House of Bishops gave the greatest possible leadership in the General Synod. However, as I sat there, the analogy that struck me was that it was a bit like Government Whips trying to talk to the Eurosceptics; there were those in the General Synod who, whatever the bishops said to them, were just not going to listen. So, in fairness, the House of Bishops in an episcopal-led Church was very clear about the need to make change. Those bishops work every day with women clergy in their dioceses and see the fantastic work that they are doing in the Church of England. That work must be valued and cherished, and we need to ensure that any changes do not square the circle by bringing forth proposals for women bishops who would be second-class bishops. I have made it clear to the General Synod on a number of occasions that Parliament simply would not approve any Measure that introduced women bishops as second-class bishops.

Eleanor Laing: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the whole House has sympathy with his position and great respect for the hard work that he has done in trying to resolve this matter. Does he agree that when the decision-making body of the established Church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society that it represents, its position as the established Church must be called into question?

Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady makes a perfectly good point, and it is one that I have repeatedly made. As a consequence of the decision by the General Synod, the Church of England no longer looks like a national Church; it simply looks like a sect, like any other sect. If it wishes to be a national Church that reflects the nation, it has to reflect the values of the nation.

Ben Bradshaw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing a wonderful, and rather thankless, job on this issue over the years on behalf of
	parliamentarians. He was at the very stormy meeting yesterday between parliamentarians and the bishops. Peers and MPs of all parties were saying with one voice that if the Church does not get on and do this, Parliament will. Will he therefore convene an emergency meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee, so that we can take legal advice as to what Parliament can do to help the Church to achieve the will of the people in the Church?

Tony Baldry: It was because of yesterday’s meeting, and because I am conscious of the concerns being expressed on both sides of the House, that I would like to convene a meeting with the archbishop-designate. Justin Welby has great leadership skills, and it is he who will have to lead the Church of England in this matter. He needs to hear the voices from the House of Lords and the House of Commons that were heard in that meeting yesterday. We need to funnel our energies into helping him to resolve the matter.

Simon Hughes: Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker.
	Can we all send our support, love and concern to all women who are ordained or hope to be ordained in the Church—including your chaplain, Mr Speaker, and all others? They must feel even more frustrated than we do, but we are not going to let them down. Given that, over the past 20 years, the Church has managed to sort out how parishes that did not want women priests could be looked after, does the Second Church Estates Commissioner not agree that it must be possible to resolve this issue? Will he invite the Minister for Women and Equalities to offer the services of the Government, not to tell the Church what to do but to offer it professional advice on how to deliver what the majority want, as soon as possible?

Tony Baldry: I am sure that it must be possible to resolve this issue. The important thing is to continue to work at it until it is resolved. An increasing number of ordinands coming into the Church are women, and we need to have a Church in which everyone is valued. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct is saying that, at present, a number of women out there in the clergy are feeling undervalued. That is wrong; they are very much valued and cherished, and there needs to be a full place for them in our national Church.

Chris Bryant: Since I was ordained as a priest in the Church of England 25 years ago, women have become vicars, rectors, deans, rural deans and even archdeacons, so it is ludicrous that they cannot now become bishops. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we will have no truck with more concessions to the hard-liners who want to make women second-rate bishops. We need to speed this up. Would it not make sense to have a moratorium on the appointment of any more male bishops until there could also be women bishops—no nomination without feminisation?

Tony Baldry: Of course, we could have done that if the Prime Minister still had control over the appointment of bishops.

Ben Bradshaw: Take it back then.

Tony Baldry: It was of course the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) as Prime Minister who, without any proper consultation, renounced the ability of Downing street to have any influence over the control of bishops. I am encouraged by the suggestions from Labour Members that the Prime Minister should take back the power to appoint bishops, but I suspect that might create a few problems. I think everyone will have heard the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Peter Bone: I think my hon. Friend was wrong in what he said about the Eurosceptics, because the Eurosceptics happen to be right. The important point, which I hope he will accept, is that it is not for this House to say how the established Church is run. We may well have our own opinion, but it is a very dangerous thing for the House of Commons to tell the established Church how to run itself.

Tony Baldry: I say, in all friendship to my hon. Friend, that as I sat through the debates in General Synod, it struck me that the Eurosceptics and the conservative evangelicals had quite a lot in common in their approach. Nevertheless, he makes a serious point on which the House should reflect. Since 1919, it has been the convention that although Parliament has the ultimate control over the Church of England—it is an established Church, after all, and the Book of Common Prayer is but an annexe to the Act of Uniformity—the Church of England comes forward with its Measures, and if they are passed by the Church of England they will be approved or otherwise by Parliament. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that if the Church of England is a national Church and an established Church, it is right and proper for Parliament to make clear its views and opinions to the Church of England and for the Church of England to hear what Parliament is saying.

David Winnick: I am not involved with the Church of England and I am a lifelong non-believer, but I want to say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly admire for the stance he has taken, that it is simply impossible to understand how on earth it can be argued that if women are considered appropriate to be deacons and priests, as they have been in the last 20 years, they are not worthy to be bishops. It is simply impossible to understand that. Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that, for many of us, this opposition to women bishops bears comparison with the opposition 100 years ago to women having the right to vote and to sit in the House of Commons? It is an anti-women attitude—a feeling that women have no place in public life, in religion or in politics—that I find contemptible.

Tony Baldry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fairness, if he reads the comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday, he will find that the archbishop said exactly the same as him—that it is intolerable to have a situation where women can be priests, deacons, archdeacons and deans, yet not be bishops. In his own way, the hon. Gentleman is saying almost exactly the same as the Archbishop of Canterbury about this intolerable situation.

Claire Perry: Probably not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I think that we are elected on a far more democratic basis than the House of Laity.
	I believe that there is very strong support for this Measure both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). We share the most extraordinary Dean of Salisbury Cathedral, in the shape of the Rev. June Osborne. May we please urge the bishops to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rhondda of a moratorium? It is in their control. They could do it themselves. I know that it would be a complicated process, but it would be less complicated than the fiendish voting structure that we saw yesterday.
	If you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, may I add that my heart goes out to those women who will be standing up on Sunday and doing, in many cases, a superior job of bringing people to God and bringing the comfort of Christianity to their constituents? This is disgraceful. Please could we all share in some sort of message of support? There will be change. We are behind this change. It has to happen.

Tony Baldry: I am sure that women throughout the Church will have heard the encouraging comments of my hon. Friend, and those of, I think, every other Member who has spoken so far.

Helen Goodman: I joined the Movement for the Ordination of Women in 1976, and I find it incredible that we are still having this argument 36 years later. I am very pleased that the Second Church Estates Commissioner understands our feelings about the urgent need for this Measure.
	May I suggest that too many concessions have been made to those who are opposed to women priests? That is what has given them hope, and it is why they have continued to fight. It is simply unjust to do that at the expense of women in the Church.

Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady’s comments demonstrate the difficulty of striking a balance between various groups in the Church of England, and trying to ensure that everyone feels that there is a continuing place for them in the Church. It has always been a broad Church, and as far as possible we want to keep everyone in that broad Church. However, I assure the hon. Lady that I know, and the House has made very clear, that Parliament simply would not pass a Measure that discriminated against women, squaring the circle by trying to make them bishops but second-class bishops. Everyone has to understand that.

David Tredinnick: I think it important for Parliament to express a view, but I also think that it would be better for us to pass a short Bill requiring female bishops. We need to put the Church out of its agony, and to end the antiquated voting system to which my hon. Friend has referred.
	Is my hon. Friend aware that there is nothing new about female bishops? There is a ninth-century mosaic in a Roman basilica showing two saints, who are named, the Virgin Mary, and a fourth woman who is clearly
	described as Bishop Theodora: Theodora Episcopa. She was a female bishop. The Church has had them in the past.

Tony Baldry: The occasions in the past when Parliament and the Church of England have gone head to head on matters of worship and doctrine—there were disputes about the prayer book in the late 1920s, for instance—are not happy precedents. I think it important for the Church of England to listen very carefully to what Parliament is saying. Although, in my view, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right to say yesterday that the Church needed a “sharp prod”, I hope and believe that Parliament will give it time to sort itself out and get on with the issue, and I assure the House that we will do so as speedily as possible.

Eilidh Whiteford: Speaking as one who is part of the wider Anglican communion, I am profoundly saddened and disappointed by the Church of England’s failure to make progress on the role of women in spiritual and public life. It leaves us with the continuing anomaly that seats for bishops in the other place are available exclusively to men. I simply do not believe that that is sustainable in a modern democracy. Does the Commissioner believe that we might, in fact, be doing the Church a favour by seeking to review its constitutional status?

Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to remind us that the Church of England is part of a wider Anglican communion, and that the whole of the Anglican communion will be looking at how the Church of England conducts itself. I agree with the comments that have been made about the Church reflecting, and I think that everyone in it needs to reflect on how out of touch it now appears to Parliament—to every part and every corner of the House of Commons.

Tessa Munt: I pay tribute to the many women in my constituency who take part in the formal and informal structures of the Church. They are very important to rural life, and I know that my bishop—Peter Price, the Bishop of Bath and Wells—deeply appreciates the contribution of his large female work force.
	I agree with what has been said about women on boards. Might the hon. Gentleman be able to explain to newer Members why this particular Church does not have to observe equalities legislation?

Tony Baldry: May I correct a point that seems to be getting some coinage? The Church of England does not enjoy any particular exemption from sex equality legislation. Obviously, equalities legislation is entirely a matter for this House, but the legislation that applies to the Church of England applies to all faith groups in this country. If Parliament were to seek to change the legislation, it would apply to every faith group. That is clearly a matter for the House.

Ann Coffey: The bishops sit in the House of Lords on the basis of a moral authority, and they vote on a range of issues, including equalities legislation. It is now clear that the views of the established Church do not reflect the views of the British people, so is it not time that the bishops left the House of Lords?
	Is not the real problem that the Church of England is entitled, by right, to places in an unreformed, unaccountable and unelected House of Lords?

Tony Baldry: I think it is rather tough that a number of people are taking out their frustration on the bishops, because the bishops gave clear leadership, with almost every single bishop who spoke and voted indicating that they want to have women bishops. They, too, are very keen to ensure that they are joined in the House of Lords by women bishops. There could be no clearer leadership in the Church than that given by the bishops of the Church of England on the fact that they want to have women bishops.

Martin Vickers: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and agree wholly with what he was saying, and I particularly welcome the opportunity of parliamentarians meeting the archbishop-designate. May I link two points that my hon. Friend made? Speaking as a Eurosceptic and as someone who has stood, unsuccessfully, for election to the House of Laity, may I suggest to him that the House of Laity is about as representative of opinion in the pews as the European Parliament is of constituents? May I also urge him to move forward as quickly as possible with a review of the electoral arrangements for the House of Laity?

Tony Baldry: It was my mistake for wandering down the route of commenting about Eurosceptics. One thing that we were enjoined to do in the General Synod was live in amity with all our colleagues, so I hope that I can always do that. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that a number of questions will continue to be asked about the arrangements for electing the General Synod, because we simply cannot have a situation where 42 out of 44 dioceses vote overwhelmingly for women bishops and that simply is not reflected in the vote in the General Synod and the House of Laity—that is simply unsustainable.

Seema Malhotra: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all his work on this matter and thank him for it. I also wish to echo the sentiments that so many hon. Members have expressed about the contribution that women in the Church make in all our constituencies. Does he agree that the reaction that this has caused in the population as a whole, including on Twitter and in social media, has shown how important this issue is to the nation and how important it is that Parliament acts? I include in that the petition that has been started to raise the question as to whether there should be an automatic right for bishops to sit in the House of Lords if there are no women bishops.

Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady clearly demonstrates that the Church of England has to be a national Church. It is the Church of the Remembrance day services, it is the Church of the coronation and it is the Church of which the Queen is head as Head of State and Head of the Church. One of the first things the Queen did during her jubilee celebrations was attend a meeting at Lambeth palace that was attended by all faith groups. What was very moving was that all those faith groups said that they felt confident in freedom of religion for them because of the role of the Church of England as
	the national Church. So the Church of England, as a national Church, is failing the whole nation and other faith groups if it does not reflect our national character.

Jane Ellison: May I say, Mr Speaker, how much many of us supported the robust comments your Chaplain made in the media after this announcement was made? My oldest friend is due to be ordained in 2014, and the Church will be lucky to have her, as she is someone of huge talent. But surely the Church sees that it will not attract women of that calibre if they see that they will not be able to pursue the full extent of their talents.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We are very fortunate to have attracted into the Church over the past 20 years many women of extraordinary talent, leadership, skill and commitment. Indeed, the Church of England would not manage without their skill, leadership and commitment. We need to be able to continue to recruit people of that high calibre and I hope that we will continue to do so.

Mr Speaker: We are also all extremely fortunate in our Chaplain and I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) for what she said.

Jonathan Ashworth: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and many people will appreciate the way in which he has put them. It is clearly unsustainable for us to have an all-male episcopate. Does he agree that the decision sadly risks damaging the reputation of the Church in the eyes of many of our constituents? Will he consider working with the business managers to find a way for this House to express its will and send a clear, unanimous and courteous message to the General Synod that it needs to think again?

Tony Baldry: I shall certainly reflect on that interesting suggestion with the business managers and the Clerks.

James Duddridge: Given that a significant minority in the House of Laity have spoken and said that women are not competent to be bishops, will my hon. Friend, alongside me, call on that significant minority to launch an urgent review into the competence of its own head of the Church of England?

Tony Baldry: Those who voted against women bishops at General Synod did so because of their own particular theological convictions. While acknowledging those theological convictions, the Church now needs to find a way to move forward as speedily as possible to ensure that women can be consecrated as bishops in the Church of England.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the hon. Gentleman share my sadness and that of many other people that the Church has made itself appear so out of touch and anachronistic in its decision making? The head of the Church of England is a woman, but in the 21st century we cannot have women bishops.

Tony Baldry: I agree. It is a great sadness. I suspect that every right hon. and hon. Member has recently had representations from Church members on same-sex marriage. If the Church of England thinks that Parliament will listen to it with considerable attention on moral issues such as same-sex marriage and so on when the Church of England seems to be so out of step on other issues of concern to Parliament, it is simply deluding itself.

Oliver Colvile: I must declare an interest in that my sister is a vicar in the Church of England in your constituency, Mr Speaker, and I personally own the living of a parish in Oxfordshire. Does my hon. Friend think that if Mrs Proudie had been the bishop rather than her husband, Obadiah Slope would have had a rather different career path?

Tony Baldry: I suspect, Mr Speaker, that that is true. It is reassuring to discover that there are still Members of this House who own livings of parishes in the Church of England.

Bob Blackman: I caution my hon. Friend about comparisons between the EU and the Church of England, as the EU forces people to vote and vote again until it gets the result it wants. Clearly, the Church of England has shown itself to be completely out of touch with the views not only of Parliament but of the country at large. Is it not time now for the General Synod to review its whole decision-making process so that it can reflect the wishes of its members?

Tony Baldry: The General Synod will have to reflect on the comments made by my hon. Friend and others about its effectiveness, about how it is elected and about whether it represents members of the Church of England, the broader community and society as a whole. Historically and even today, church wardens have been elected by the whole community because there is recognition that in every parish church wardens represent the community as a whole. We will have to consider how the laity elected to the General Synod can reflect the broadest range of society—certainly among those who are members of the Church of England and perhaps among the community as a whole. I am quite sure that will be reviewed in the coming months.

Charlie Elphicke: As a Church of England believer, I have never understood how a woman can be head of the Church yet somehow women cannot be bishops. I urge that we consider bringing in a short Bill ordering that women should be able to be bishops in the Church of England.

Tony Baldry: In the General Synod debate, part of which I sat through, there were some who argued that it was impossible for women to have headship, and I just could not understand how they sought to reconcile that with the fact that Parliament has made the Queen defender of the faith and that we are fortunate enough to have her not only as Head of State, but as head of the Church.

Duncan Hames: This week’s decision reflects very badly on the Church, but also very unfairly; the Church, after all, is all the people who are part of it, not just one legislative committee. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that, given that a large majority of them have shown that they are as keen to have women bishops as we in this House are, the problem lies not with the members of the Church of England, but with the paralysis of its decision-making structures?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend is right to remind us at the end of these questions that the overwhelming majority of members of the Church of England want women bishops. It is now beholden on us all, whether in the Church of England or outside, to try to ensure that happens as speedily as possible.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 26 November—Remaining stages of the Small Charitable Donations Bill. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to make a statement on the EU Council.
	Tuesday 27 November—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill.
	Wednesday 28 November—Opposition day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 29 November—A debate on a motion relating to Scotland and the Union, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the 40th anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan Asians. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Lord Justice Leveson intends to publish his report on 29 November. The Prime Minister plans to make a statement to the House subsequently.
	Friday 30 November—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 3 December will include:
	Monday 3 December—General debate on the Leveson inquiry.
	Tuesday 4 December—Remaining stages of the Public Service Pensions Bill, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of IPSA board members.
	Wednesday 5 December—The Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his autumn statement, followed by consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill.
	Thursday 6 December—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. The recent military conflict in Gaza has horrified many Members of the House. There is widespread relief that there is now a ceasefire, but it feels like the possibility of a lasting settlement is slipping away as facts on the ground make any agreement harder to reach. We welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House earlier this week. As the Leader of the House will know, the Palestinian leadership are applying for full observer status at the UN. The Opposition support that application. Before the vote at the UN, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the matter in Government time?
	On the Justice and Security Bill, we had suggested to the Government a sensible way forward that would have given judges greater discretion and accepted the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights while at the same time ensuring that intelligence sources were protected. We regret that the Government
	did not seek to work on a cross-party basis. Yesterday, on three separate occasions, they were defeated in the other place when our Liberal Democrat colleagues joined Labour and Cross-Bench peers to improve the Bill. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the roving Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), to make an urgent statement on how the Government will now proceed?
	In business questions before the recess, I asked the Leader of the House about the forthcoming report by Lord Leveson. I said the House should have an opportunity to debate the report fully, and the Government should set out in advance the process for consideration of the inquiry’s recommendations. May I therefore thank the Leader of the House for announcing a general debate in Government time on the Leveson recommendations, which we now understand will be published next Thursday?
	Does the Leader of the House agree that throughout this process we must remember to listen to the voices of the victims and their families, and also remember that this inquiry was the result of the gross intrusion they suffered at times of maximum distress? Will the Leader of the House therefore assure me that his Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Education Secretary, will not seek to undermine Lord Leveson or his report?
	Will the Leader of the House ask the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement on the elections for police and crime commissioners, as his appearance at this week’s Deputy Prime Minister’s questions left none of us any the wiser? The House has heard from the Home Secretary, but if the Leader of the House is successful in coaxing the Deputy Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box we could ask the great strategist why he was so keen to hold these elections in November. So successful was this strategy for getting out the Liberal Democrat vote that the Liberal Democrats managed to win exactly none of the elections they chose to contest last Thursday.
	It appears that the Liberal Democrats used the PCC elections to test out their brand new election strategy. In north Wales, the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats endorsed one Winston Roddick, saying that
	“as an independent candidate, he is free from party political pressure”.
	He was elected, but it was subsequently uncovered that Mr Roddick was, in fact, a member of the Liberal Democrats masquerading as an independent. May we have an urgent debate on this new Liberal Democrat election strategy to hoodwink people into voting for them?
	Has the Leader of the House had a chance to look at the winners of The Spectator parliamentarian awards? Will he join me in congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister on his award—for apology of the year? I predict he will be up for it again next year. May I also congratulate the Government Chief Whip, who won the award for resurrection of the year? My only disappointment is that I did not win tipster of the year for predicting that in this House.
	Does the Leader of the House think we should nominate Mr Roddick, the not-so-independent police and crime commissioner, for politician of the year, as he is the only Liberal Democrat to have found an election-winning strategy? The Education Secretary should be given a special award for News International politician
	of the year now that Louise Mensch is no longer a Member of the House. Will the Leader of the House suggest which Cabinet Minister we could nominate for omnishambles of the year, because Labour Members think any number of them would be worthy winners?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response, particularly on the arrangements for a debate, provisionally set for Monday 3 December, on the Leveson inquiry. We now have a date for the publication of its report, and she asked further about that. The House will have heard what the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said. As the report will be published in just a few days, it is absolutely right that we should wait and see what Lord Leveson says in it, and very shortly thereafter the House will have an opportunity to express its views.
	The hon. Lady asked about the situation in the middle east. The Foreign Secretary made a statement on that, and there were further questions at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will want to keep the House fully informed. The Prime Minister said yesterday what we made clear last year at the United Nations General Assembly: that it would not be helpful for the question of observer status for the Palestinian people to be brought to a vote. None the less, if that question is brought to a vote, the Foreign Secretary will, of course, want to tell the House about our judgment on it.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about the progress of the Justice and Security Bill in another place. I and my colleagues will make it clear during the passage of the Bill in another place how we propose to respond to the progress of the Bill. We will look carefully at the votes and think carefully about them, but there is an important principle, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio and others have made clear: that in cases before civil courts the judge should have access to all the evidence. That is also a principle of justice that it is important to seek to maintain.
	I am very tempted to have a debate on police and crime commissioners, not least because it would allow us an opportunity to set out clearly how, under this coalition Government, crime across the country is falling. Police and crime commissioners will be democratically elected and democratically accountable to enable us not only to sustain that reduction in crime, but to translate the priorities of the people directly into the priorities of policing in their areas. I do not understand why Labour Members now want a debate about this. The Labour party did not seem to be able to work out whether it wanted to debate it, deny it, support it, oppose it, say it was the wrong thing to do and then stand candidates for it. A debate would give us the opportunity to debate the position not of the current Deputy Prime Minister, but of the former Deputy Prime Minister.
	I was interested in what the hon. Lady said about Mr Winston Roddick as the police and crime commissioner elected in North Wales. As it happened, my wife met him in Menai Bridge during the fair. He came up to her and asked, “Do you know anything about the police and crime commissioner elections?” She said, “As it happens, I do.” Curiously—I have checked with her— Mr Winston Roddick did not disclose any party affiliation whatever. So there we have it.
	I share with the House our admiration for many of those who were the recipients of awards from The Spectator last night, but especially so for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who is an inspiration to all of us.

Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to debate a motion next week setting up a Committee of MPs who could educate the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority about the work of the House? Did my right hon. Friend hear the admission by that gentleman on this morning’s “Today” programme that although he understood a lot about what MPs do in their constituencies, he was totally ignorant about what they did in the House, other than, as he put it, attend a zoo for one hour every Wednesday? In the light of that amazing demonstration of his ignorance, if he is to continue in his post is it not essential that he gets educated properly?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know from the statement that I made about forthcoming business that my expectation is that in the week after next we will be able to debate the appointment of Members to the board of IPSA—not the chair of the board of IPSA, whose tenure continues. In my conversations with Ian Kennedy he has made it clear to me that one of the things that he regards as most important is that there is a better understanding of the work of Members of Parliament. I will further encourage him in that process.

Karen Buck: Could we find time for a debate on policing in London, specifically the proposal announced by the Met for a major programme of closures and downgrading of police stations across the city? May we have an opportunity during that debate to discuss the fact that police stations are already closing in advance of that consultation, including Marylebone and St John’s Wood in the London borough of Westminster? It is not acceptable for our constituents to face the loss and downgrading of police stations with no opportunity for anyone in Parliament to discuss that matter

Andrew Lansley: It is not that there is no opportunity for such discussion. I recall that during the previous Business questions the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) raised issues relating to fire and rescue service stations across London and was subsequently able to secure a debate on that subject. It is primarily a matter for the Mayor of London as the commissioner of policing in London and for the London Assembly, but we here and those representing London here should have an opportunity to secure a debate.

Roger Gale: My parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) is attending a conference this morning and so is unable to be here, but I share her concern about what happened yesterday when a ship carrying live animals sailed from the port of Ramsgate in her constituency in appalling weather. The ship should never have been allowed to sail at all. It went halfway across the channel, turned back and had to unload the animals, which were then transported a long way across the country in absolute misery. This is absolutely intolerable, and it is done in the name of free trade. It is not a matter for an Adjournment debate. Will the Leader of the
	House arrange for the relevant Minister to come to the House and make a statement to explain what we propose to do to stop this in future?

Andrew Lansley: I was not aware of those circumstances, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making me and the House aware of them. I will of course raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and invite him not only to respond to my hon. Friend but to consider what form of statement it might be appropriate to make.

Barbara Keeley: I hope that the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Paula Dunn on her appointment as the Paralympics head coach of UK Athletics. She is the first woman ever to have held that role. In relation to supporting what she and other coaches might do, we had questions earlier today on the legacy of the Olympics for women in sport and the legacy of the Paralympics for disabled people, but no clear answers from Ministers, so may we have a debate in Government time on exactly what is happening and going to happen as regards the action needed to address those important legacy issues?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I think that Members of the House will share with her a sense of the real potential that the Olympics and the Paralympics gave for a legacy that is vital not only in respect of development in sport but of social change and understanding of the position of disabled people in society. It is almost difficult to talk about people being disabled when the thing that came most to the fore when watching the Paralympics was that we all have very different abilities. The Paralympics seemed largely to consist of people whose abilities were far in excess of mine and those of us who think of ourselves as not disabled. In truth, we all have very different abilities, and that very much came to the forefront; I thought it was very persuasive. The House is considering Olympic legacy issues through the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I will talk to my colleagues about how we might find an opportunity to discuss and debate those issues, but it might also be considered by the Backbench Business Committee.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I have given the Leader of the House notice of my question, which is to do with my constituent, Katie Lock. Katie applied to work at the Olympics and got all the way through the training for the company, but her application was turned down by the Home Office. The Home Office has been singularly unhelpful at all stages in finding out why this young girl’s application was turned down. May we have time to discuss this, because I am sure that she cannot be the only person to whom this has happened?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who did indeed raise this with me. I will ensure that he gets as full and complete a reply as I can secure for him from the Home Office as soon as I can.

Barry Sheerman: The House will remember the triumph of the Olympics. The only slight blemish was the security company G4S,
	which got into serious trouble and could not deliver the security that we expected. We were saved by our great troops, who stepped into the breach. Is the Leader of the House aware that G4S is now trying to ameliorate its financial position as regards the Olympics by failing to pay its supply chain and sub-contractors? Is not that a disgrace given that many of those sub-contractors performed absolutely to their contracts?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I freely confess I was unaware of, although it may have been evident to the Home Affairs Committee consequent on its inquiries. From the House’s point of view, one of the routes to inquire into what happened in relation to G4S is through that Committee.

Tessa Munt: Does the Leader of the House agree that we could debate the priorities of the Environment Agency’s maintenance programme, particularly in Somerset, where there has been catastrophic flooding over the summer and throughout this autumn, including yesterday and today? Water is lying in the fields for weeks, and that increases its toxicity so that it eventually kills off the fish, birds and other wildlife when it is released into the rivers; it is unable to be drained away or pumped from those hundreds of acres of agricultural land. Is it not time to rebalance these priorities and look at the value of wildlife over food and farming?

Andrew Lansley: It is important to recognise that the Government have put in place partnership funding arrangements with local authorities that are contributing to substantial enabling schemes to deter flooding. We expect to exceed our objective of 145,000 households being better protected by March 2015. In addition, I will talk to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs because it is important not only that we have adequate flood protection, but that the means by which we provide it are environmentally sensitive. In the wake of the flooding in my constituency in 2001, we were able to recreate some floodplains, which was an environmentally responsible way to provide flood protection.

Lyn Brown: Given the Government’s 20% cut to policing, which has necessitated a cut in the number of front-line police officers of 15,000 nationally and 100 in Croydon, may I echo the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for an urgent debate on policing in London so that voters have the unequivocal facts before they go to the polls next week?

Andrew Lansley: I encourage the hon. Lady to look in the Official Report at the questions that the Home Secretary answered last Monday, because I do not recognise her figures on the number of front-line police officers. Indeed, the proportion of officers on the front line is increasing, as is their effectiveness, as we can see from the further reduction in crime across the country that was reported recently. The first thing we should do is express our appreciation of the effectiveness with which police forces across the country are addressing the necessity of managing within reduced budgets. We should support police and crime commissioners in taking that forward and in responding to local priorities.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: A large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As usual, I am anxious to accommodate as many of them as possible. The House will be conscious of the fact that there is an important Government statement and three pieces of business under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee to follow. That information serves to underline the imperative of short questions and answers. We will be led in our mission by Mr Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 686 on compensation for Zimbabwean farmers who had their land stolen by Mugabe?
	[That this House calls on the World Bank and the Zimbabwe government to respect the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) court ruling in April 2009 that granted compensation of EUR22.5 million to Zimbabwean and European farmers, including Timolene Tibbett, who were illegally and often brutally thrown off their land during the Mugabe land reform in 2000 and 2001; believes that settlement of this claim will demonstrate a commitment to international law from the coalition Zimbabwe government and build confidence with international investors that arbitration ruling for investments, no matter how small or large, will be respected to created jobs and opportunities in Zimbabwe; and cautions the World Bank against adopting the incoherent position of progressing with a debt write-off programme with the Zimbabwe government whilst not ensuring the Zimbabwe government honours the legal commitments arrived at via proceedings of the ICSID, which is a World Bank court.]
	May we have a debate on Zimbabwe to ensure that we get justice and compensation for farmers, including my constituent, Timolene Tibbett?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that, like me, the House will have seen my hon. Friend’s early-day motion. I hope that we can find an opportunity for such a debate. To accelerate the process, it might be advisable for him and others to seek time to discuss the issue on the Adjournment.

Dave Watts: Given the Government’s promise to review the way in which the work capability test is carried out, may we have a statement on their progress, because to many Members it seems that nothing is improving?

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a written ministerial statement yesterday on the further report by Professor Harrington, which has enabled us to make considerable progress in improving the work capability assessment.

Laurence Robertson: May I return to flooding, which adversely affected my Tewkesbury constituency yesterday? Given that further heavy rainfall is predicted for tonight, will the Leader of the House alert the relevant Departments that they may need to make a statement or respond to an urgent question on Monday?

Andrew Lansley: Many of us have experienced flooding, to varying degrees, in our constituencies. I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency has experienced serious flooding in the past and is at risk now. It is important that we keep the House fully informed—my hon. Friend will make sure that we do—about the steps that the Government can take, through both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Communities and Local Government in supporting local authorities. I know that I do not need to encourage those Departments to keep the House and Members fully informed.

Keith Vaz: May we have an urgent debate or statement on the devastating report that was published this morning by the chief inspector of the borders and immigration service? It revealed that in Liverpool there are 100,000 letters from Members of Parliament and the public that have not been opened. When may we have a debate on that important issue?

Andrew Lansley: The UK Border Agency chief executive will have written to the right hon. Gentleman as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee to address some of the issues raised by the report and make clear that UKBA has accepted all the chief inspector’s recommendations. The chief inspector was clear that UKBA is now tackling those problems—and has been since April 2012—although I would not diminish the scale of the legacy problems it inherited and some of the difficulties and errors that have occurred. My colleagues in the Home Office are determined to ensure that UKBA not only deals with those legacy issues, but that it continues to improve the service it provides, and they will report on that to the House.

Nick de Bois: May I press the Leader of the House on the present crisis in the middle east and urge him to reconsider and try to find time for an urgent debate so that the House can make clear its views?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware, not least from the statement I have just made, of the many pressing issues that the House has to consider. There are opportunities through the Backbench Business Committee for Members to pursue those issues, which may—and often have—extend to international affairs.

Lucy Powell: May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent statement or debate on the privatisation of Greater Manchester ambulance service? As he may know, the contract to run part of this important service was recently awarded to Arriva—yes, that is the bus and train company—despite the NHS bid winning on quality and service. Arriva was given the contract on cost alone. Patients and carers across Greater Manchester are rightly worried that the quality of their service will suffer as a result, and that they have been consigned to a poorer quality service than the rest of the north-west region.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure the House will wish to welcome the hon. Lady to her place. Decisions on contracts of that kind are made locally within the national health service, not centrally by the Secretary of State, but I will ask my ministerial friends in the Department of Health
	to write to her with details on that case. My recollection is that the tender is often for patient transport services, rather than emergency responses, and one should be careful to distinguish between those two things. There are examples elsewhere in the country of where patient transport services are not administered by the local ambulance service trust but a good service is maintained none the less.

Gareth Johnson: My constituent, Vaughan Williams, served on the arctic convoys during the second world war—a journey that Winston Churchill described as the worst in the entire world. Foreign Office rules prevent Mr Williams from receiving the medal he was awarded by the Russian Government, who recognised that he had risked his life to fight Nazism. May we have a debate on the bravery of those who served on the arctic convoys, and on the inappropriateness of rules that prevent full recognition of such bravery?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend may seek to secure such a debate on the Adjournment of the House or through the Backbench Business Committee, and judging from the response in the House he may be supported in that. I recall—as no doubt he does—that at Prime Minister’s questions a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister made it clear that he will look personally at the question of a service medal relating to the arctic convoys.

Eilidh Whiteford: Is the Leader of the House aware of intense media speculation in recent days that the UK Government will not get any EU funding for carbon capture and storage in the current round because they have failed to provide funding guarantees? So far, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has refused to deny those rumours, which are causing great uncertainty and sending mixed messages on the UK Government’s commitment to carbon capture and storage. May we therefore have a statement from the Department at the earliest opportunity?

Andrew Lansley: My colleagues at the Department have made it clear that, among other commitments, they will make an annual energy statement at some point this year. I will raise that issue with them, but they are aware of it—the Government’s commitment to carbon capture and storage has been made very clear on a number of occasions.

Christopher Pincher: Last week, I visited a school in Tamworth, where a 16-year-old history student asked, “Who is Napoleon?” They had also not heard of the Duke of Wellington. May we therefore have a debate on extending rigour in education, particularly in the teaching of history—history student numbers fell by 1.2% in 2011—so that future generations of history students know our history and chronology, and that the Duke of Wellington was a soldier and statesman, and not a public house?

Andrew Lansley: The Duke of Wellington in Bourn in my constituency is well known for that purpose. My hon. Friend makes a good, important point well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Education is among those at the vanguard of believing that an understanding of history, and of the narratives that form an essential part of it, is an essential part of our understanding of
	who we are and where we come from, and what kind of people we are and what we can achieve. From that point of view, I am sure the Secretary of State shares my hon. Friend’s view—as will Members on both sides of the House—that we must ensure we achieve such understanding of the history of this country in schools.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on the situation that arose in north Wales, where a Liberal Democrat pretended to be an independent? There is evidence that that has happened in still higher-status positions than police and crime commissioner—in the Deputy Prime Minister, we have a Tory pretending to be a Liberal Democrat.

Andrew Lansley: I cannot speak from personal experience of Mr Winston Roddick in north Wales, but I referred to the matter earlier in response to the shadow Leader of the House. To that extent, I have some knowledge of it.

Andrew Selous: May we have an early debate on crime prevention, so that police forces around the country can learn from the excellent hands off project, created by Bedfordshire police, in which owners’ property is marked by their DNA? That has been used successfully and enthusiastically in schools, and has great potential to cut crime.

Andrew Lansley: That sounds like an intriguing, if slightly alarming, mechanism. I had heard of highlighter pens, but not of DNA marking. Members and police services might be interested in that. My hon. Friend will no doubt agree that that illustrates the importance of innovation and new technology as essential parts of the process of fighting crime. I hope police and crime commissioners will demonstrate not only their responsiveness to public views, but their ability to embrace innovation.

Derek Twigg: Halton is the 27th most deprived borough in England and Wales, and has high unemployment. I was therefore shocked to receive a letter last week from the permanent secretary at the Department for Education informing me that it was shutting its Runcorn site, with the loss of 220 jobs. The letter states that a report would be available on the website, but it was not. Only through the good work of the permanent secretary’s office did I manage eventually to find the report, but it left more questions unanswered than answered. May I ask the Leader of the House for his help? Does he agree the Department should brief MPs in detail on the reasons for decisions of that magnitude, so that we can ask questions? Will he use his influence and ask his colleagues in the Department to ensure that the meeting I have requested happens sooner rather than later?

Andrew Lansley: I will of course ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Education whether they can meet the hon. Gentleman as he has requested. I do not know the circumstances, but I judge from what he says that the Department’s intention, through the permanent secretary, was to inform him of the decision. I will check how that was achieved to ensure that he and Members get notification of announcements affecting their constituencies in future.

Rehman Chishti: May we have a debate on yesterday’s report on sexual grooming by gangs?

Andrew Lansley: The House will have been shocked, as my hon. Friend no doubt was, by the report. The House, through the Backbench Business Committee, was able to debate child sexual exploitation last week. The issue has been debated, but we must press forward, and my colleagues are doing so with the tackling child sexual exploitation action plan and other measures. The interim report made a number of recommendations that we must pursue. We must also look at the recommendations from phase 2 next year, but be ready now to take all the action we can, as illustrated by my hon. Friends’ response to last week’s debate.

Andy Slaughter: The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), during a statement earlier this week, called for a full debate in Government time on the situation in the middle east. The response of the Leader of the House today was as incoherent on the issue as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were in trying to justify not supporting Palestinian statehood. This is a serious situation with a fragile ceasefire, the threat of a ground attack and 160 dead. May we have a debate as soon as possible?

Andrew Lansley: We will of course consider that. I had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) and he was clear in encouraging us to consider having a debate on the middle east. I have not been able to find time now, but it is open to hon. Members to seek such a debate using the time available to the Backbench Business Committee. Likewise, it is open to the Opposition, which has time for a debate next week should they wish to use it for that purpose. I think what I said was simply a reflection of what has been said many times by the Government and was repeated by the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday: what we want to do is secure the best possible progress in negotiations and use the ceasefire to make progress quickly. His response illustrated that urgency and the Government’s view that precipitating a vote at the United Nations was not necessarily the best way of making progress.

Graham Stuart: May we have a debate in Government time on community first responders, in particular on maintaining and improving training capacity? They do such a lot to ensure that people in rural areas are looked after when ambulance response times are often so slow.

Andrew Lansley: I share completely my hon. Friend’s support for and appreciation of community first responders. Ambulance service trusts across the country have achieved the most consistent performance to date in responding to category A calls. However, while they meet the overall targets well, we know that response time is variable and particularly difficult in rural areas. Those of us who represent more rural areas appreciate how community first responders can make an important, additional contribution.

Jim McGovern: Can we have a debate on the ever-increasing price of gas and electricity, and the obscene profits posted by the organisations who provide those utilities? Mr John Bisset, who is a community activist in my constituency, said that when he goes to the post office each week many elderly people approach him and say that they are unsure of the Government’s position, following the Prime Minister’s recent statements. I hope that such a debate will allow us to clarify that position.

Andrew Lansley: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will therefore have been appreciative and attentive when the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change gave evidence to the Select Committee. He made it clear that—as the Prime Minister and Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, and as I repeated at previous business questions—we will ensure that people have access to the best possible tariffs. That is exactly what the Secretary of State has now made clear we will do, and further announcements will be made shortly.

Greg Mulholland: We were all inspired by the success of our sporting heroes this summer. The challenge now is to get ordinary people involved in local sports, so can we have a debate about grass-roots community sport and the vital work of our county sports partnerships? Will the right hon. Gentleman also commend West Yorkshire Sport in my area for putting on the first Olympic legacy “Be Inspired, Get Involved” community sports fair next Wednesday at Lawnswood school?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I very much appreciate that. In my experience, sports partnerships have made tremendous strides in enabling competitive sport to prosper in schools around the country and have not limited but encouraged wider participation in sport among young people. That is why, as Secretary of State for Health, I provided additional financial support to organisers of sports partnerships. I share my hon. Friend’s view. We have discussed this point previously at business questions, and I hope that initiatives will emerge that enable us to debate the sporting legacy and the future of sport in this country, given the tremendous opportunity we have following the Olympics and Paralympics.

David Hanson: The Deputy Prime Minister today rejected my request in a parliamentary question that we ensure that independents standing for election declare any political party membership at the time of their nomination. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said about Winston Roddick in my area of north Wales and given the sympathy I sense the Leader of the House has with this issue, may we have an early debate on transparency of independents at local, national and regional elections?

Andrew Lansley: Those issues are governed by statute, and an opportunity to discuss them might arise in a debate on electoral registration and administration in due course.

Andrew Jones: Harrogate high school is receiving funding for a complete rebuild from the priority school building programme. May we have a debate on capital investment in schools,
	particularly considering that the current scheme is achieving better value for taxpayers than previous schemes and that capital is being used to provide the extra school places we need?

Andrew Lansley: I would be delighted if that opportunity were to arise, particularly given that secondary schools are now being built for £6 million less, on average, than under the Building Schools for the Future programme. I have seen evidence of that in my own constituency, where a new school is being built, as a free school, employing composite laminated timbers prefabricated in Yorkshire and Humberside.

Stephen Timms: May we have an urgent debate on the living wage, so that we can explore why councils such as Tory Croydon, which does not pay the living wage to its employees, charges a higher level of council tax than neighbouring Labour Lambeth, which does?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman might like to talk to his own Front-Bench team about whether they wish to discuss the matter, as Opposition time is available next Wednesday. He might like to press that case on them. I would be happy to debate the matter, however, because it would enable us to discuss not only our support for a living wage but the efficiency and value for money delivered by Conservative local authorities relative to Labour ones.

David Nuttall: On 18 October, the House passed a motion calling on the Government to reverse their decision to disband the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. May we have a statement on when and how the Government propose to respond to that motion?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall that Ministers responded not only at the time but at questions subsequently. The Army will continue to implement the changes announced on 5 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or Defence, and further uncertainty for serving Fusiliers would be unhelpful. We now need to support them through the battalion merger as they look to the future.

William Bain: When will the Leader of the House schedule a debate about the misery that falling real wages are causing to the living standards of millions of people across our country? Is he aware that this morning the Office for National Statistics published data showing that wages rose by only 1.3%, on average, across the UK and by only 0.9% in Scotland, but that the inflation rate has been, on average, 3.1%? Is that not another example of the Government’s complete economic incompetence?

Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Gentleman wants to persuade his hon. Friends to have a debate on the economy next week, we will be happy to have that. We could explain how inflation has fallen, how unemployment is rising, how we have cut the deficit by a quarter, how we have spending under control and how we have low interest rates as a consequence of the confidence that people across the world have in the Government’s fiscal consolidation. I know that he and the right hon. Member
	for East Ham (Stephen Timms) are interested in the level of the minimum wage and living wage. That and other issues, including equal marriage, will be debated by the Youth Parliament in the Chamber tomorrow. They might like to watch.

Eleanor Laing: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the House considers the order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998—a significant piece of constitutional legislation, giving the Scottish Parliament the power to conduct a referendum that has the ability to affect the entire constitutional position of the United Kingdom—it will do so on the Floor of the House and for a whole day?

Andrew Lansley: I have not been able to announce that business yet, but I will fully take into account my hon. Friend’s views when we schedule it in future.

Diana Johnson: In July, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told me that there was to be an announcement about the new agreement between the insurance industry and the Government on flooding insurance. Some 500 of my constituents wrote to the new Secretary of State recently but have not had a response. With the inclement weather, flooding is obviously becoming more of an issue. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that statement is to be expected?

Andrew Lansley: I recall the Secretary of State making it clear at questions recently that continuing progress was being made in those discussions, but that there were complex discussions to be had with the Association of British Insurers and others. I will of course discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that under the current circumstances people will be reassured if such a statement can be made, but clearly it is dependent on the outcome of negotiations.

Andrew Bridgen: In recent weeks it has become clear that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s work on the BBC “Newsnight” investigation into allegations of child abuse in north Wales was highly inaccurate and lacked even the most basic journalistic rigour. On Monday 12 November, I wrote to the bureau asking journalists there to detail any payments they had received from the BBC for that work and to return this licence fee payers’ money. As yet I have had no response. Can we have an urgent debate on whether an investigation should be carried out into whether any organisation profited from this shoddy work of journalism, which has caused distress to so many and so damaged the reputation of the BBC?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. Many colleagues will share his view about this. I can reassure him that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has provided no public funding to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Broadcasters are independent of Government, so whether they work with the bureau or any other organisation is a matter for them, but it is also incumbent on them to ensure that they maintain the tradition of strong investigative journalism—which we all appreciate and
	which is an essential part of public service and commercial broadcasting—in a way that maintains high standards. That is the balance—I think we will be debating this a lot in coming weeks—of achieving freedom and having a mechanism of scrutiny and accountability, which a free press and free broadcasters enable us to have, while maintaining high standards.

Tom Blenkinsop: May we have a statement on why the Government have overspent by £1 billion on their misapplication of the academies programme, as outlined by the National Audit Office? Its report says:
	“DfE was unprepared for the scale of the financial implications”
	of this rapid expansion. Can such a statement indicate where budget cuts to children’s services, funding cuts to underperforming schools and funding cuts to 16 to 19-year-olds staying on in education have been made, and also provide an explanation to Department for Education staff in the Tees valley who have recently been sacked?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read the National Audit Office report to which he referred, which also says that the rapid expansion of academies schools was a significant achievement, which it is. It will have important benefits, through the increased autonomy and accountability that it brings and by delivering improved standards for our children. That is an investment worth making. As for future debates, no doubt there will be an opportunity at questions or for the Liaison Committee to consider whether it wishes to follow up on that report.

Harriett Baldwin: May we have a debate on the importance of the post office network, which in my constituency provides such an important public service? My constituents will welcome the fact that it recently won the new Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency contract and that over £1.3 billion is being invested in the network, so that we can finally say that the era of post office closures in this country is over.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. Hon. Members have often asked me about it, and I could quite properly say nothing about it that would be prejudicial to continuing contract negotiations. But now that the contract has been won, I am pleased to say that we can really celebrate the fact that the Post Office has won it. I think Members across the House will appreciate it, and as we made clear in the past, it allows us to ensure that the Post Office can not only secure business from Government, but maintain its offer of business in many communities across the country that were threatened under the last Government.

Peter Bone: May we have an early debate on the Charity Commission in England, with a view to reviewing the Charities Act 2006 to ensure that previously accepted religious charities, such as the Plymouth Brethren, are not threatened with the removal of their charitable status?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I have had occasion to meet, by way
	of example, members of the Plymouth Brethren in my constituency, who have raised these issues with me, and I will of course discuss them with my colleagues.

Oliver Colvile: Earlier this year, the all-party group on pharmacy published its report on the shortage of medicines from local pharmacies. The group had a meeting earlier this week with my noble Friend Earl Howe, the Health Minister responsible for pharmacy, to give us an update on the Department of Health’s progress, which was not as fulsome as I would have liked it to be. May we please have a debate on that important issue, so that my constituents can know where they stand on the future supply of the important medicines on which they depend?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware, because we discussed the subject when I was Secretary of State for Health, that the supply chain for medicines is very complicated, and that it can be a very small number of medicines that are in short supply at any given moment, sometimes for reasons outside anyone’s control. For example, recently there were fires in Italy, which led to the inability to access the right medicines at the right time; but in so far as it can be managed, the Department has been pursuing supply chain initiatives that are intended to enable that to happen. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department of Health. I know they will want to be as helpful as they possibly can be in showing how we can improve reassurance for patients about their access to medicines.

Alun Cairns: The currency or value of GCSEs has been undermined over the past 15 years or so. Atlantic college, based in my constituency, established the international baccalaureate some 50 years ago, and has maintained the rigour of that qualification. May we have a general debate on qualifications, to expose the failure over the past 15 years and to learn from other organisations how we can maintain rigour in our qualification system?

Andrew Lansley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think he might say to Atlantic college that if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the examination system in this country is increasingly going to imitate the initiative from those decades ago. I know from my constituency that those who have used the IB have thought it a very successful means of reassuring themselves about standards. I hope that the English baccalaureate, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education last September, will enable us to apply some of those principles successfully across the school system. As for a debate, I do not have immediate time available, but I know that the House would appreciate the opportunity to debate the subject as soon as we can.

Jason McCartney: I attended the Huddersfield Examiner business awards earlier this month, and saw at first hand all the wonderful, enterprising businesses going out there and making it happen, and I proudly wear the “Huddersfield Place to Make It” campaign badge, which celebrates manufacturing in Huddersfield and my Colne Valley constituency. May we have a debate on all the wonderful, enterprising businesses in our constituencies that are going out there creating jobs and creating wealth for our nation, in sharp contrast to the doom-mongering mithering from the Opposition Benches?

Andrew Lansley: Huddersfield has a proud legacy of manufacturing and an inspiring future in it, too. The Government are setting out to ensure that we rebalance our economy. We understand that we are going to have to pay our way in the world in a global race, not least by reinvigorating the manufacturing heritage of this country with new technologies, first-class innovation and very high productivity. I know that Yorkshire and Humberside will be at the forefront of that. The regional growth fund projects have demonstrated how many good projects are coming forward. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend’s notice that, later today, the House will have a debate in Backbench Business Committee time to discuss the reinvigoration of manufacturing in this country.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Chris Grayling: I wish to make a statement about the Government’s approach to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on prisoner voting. This is a subject that provokes intense debate, not least in this House. The House will know that, from as early as the case of Hirst in 2004, the Court found the United Kingdom’s bar on prisoners voting to be “general, automatic and indiscriminate”, and concluded that it was, in the Court’s view, in violation of article 3, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which covers the right to free and fair elections.
	The previous Government committed to implement the judgment, and issued two consultations which did not resolve the issue. Litigation has continued in the domestic and Strasbourg courts. In the case of Greens and MT in 2010, the Strasbourg Court again found that the UK was in violation of article 3, protocol 1 of the convention, and gave the UK six months to bring forward legislative proposals to remove the violation. That deadline was stayed pending the UK’s intervention in a further case, Scoppola, involving the Italian Government. In that case, the Attorney-General argued in person before the Court that national Parliaments’ discretion to determine policy on this issue should allow for a complete bar on prisoners voting.
	The judgment in the Scoppola case was handed down in May of this year. It concludes the Strasbourg Court’s consideration of the issue. In that judgment, the Court made it clear that, in its view, the “margin of appreciation” afforded to individual Council of Europe member states to decide on how far prisoners should be enfranchised was wide, but confirmed its position that a complete bar was outside that margin. The judgment restarted the clock on Greens and MT, and it requires the Government to “bring forward legislative proposals” to give effect to the judgment by tomorrow, 23 November, and to enact the required legislation.
	The Prime Minister has made clear, on the record, his personal views on this subject, and I have done the same. Those views have not changed. However, the Government are under an international law obligation to implement the Court judgment. As Lord Chancellor, as well as Secretary of State for Justice, I take my obligation to uphold the rule of law seriously. Equally, it remains the case that Parliament is sovereign, and the Human Rights Act 1998 explicitly recognises that fact. The current law passed by Parliament remains in force unless and until Parliament decides to change it. As Lord Justice Hoffmann put it in a case in 1999:
	“Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost.”
	Last month, the Attorney-General made it clear in evidence to the Justice Committee that
	“it is entirely a matter for Government to make proposals but ultimately for Parliament to determine what it wants to do. Parliament is sovereign in this area; nobody can impose a solution on Parliament, but the accepted practice is that the United Kingdom observes its international obligations”.
	The judgment requires the Government to bring forward legislative proposals for Parliament to consider. It will then be for Parliament to scrutinise and to decide on them. So I have today laid before Parliament a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Leaders of both Houses are writing to the Liaison Committees proposing that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to conduct that pre-legislative scrutiny. We judge that pre-legislative scrutiny of this nature is appropriate, given the significance of this issue and the strong views on both sides that exist right across this House.
	The draft Bill sets out three different potential approaches for the Committee to consider. Presenting a draft Bill with that range of options reflects the spectrum of views that we know exist on this question. However, it will of course be for the Committee, once established, to consider whether approaches beyond those canvassed in the draft Bill should also be considered by Parliament in due course.
	The first approach in the draft Bill is for prisoners sentenced to less than four years to be entitled to vote. A four-year bar has previously been discussed by Parliament. The second approach would limit the vote to prisoners sentenced to six months or less. The final approach would effectively restate the current position that anyone incarcerated following conviction would not have the vote.
	The Committee will want to consider these approaches, their consequences if they were in due course adopted by Parliament, and whether there are other options—for example, the Italian system, found to be compliant by the Court, which disfranchises prisoners post-release. The Committee will, I am sure, consider evidence on this and other approaches. It may also want to reflect on the consequences for the rule of law and the UK’s international standing of Parliament’s ultimate decision. The Committee may also wish to think about practical implementation. The administrative consequences and costs for the Prison Service, the courts and the electoral registration system and electoral registration officers of different approaches could be significant.
	The House will want to note that this draft Bill does not yet deal with territorial extent. Any Bill introduced into Parliament would need to extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, although the Bill is currently drafted for England and Wales only. The Government will engage with the devolved Administrations during the pre-legislative scrutiny process to ensure that the legislation applies correctly in Northern Ireland and Scotland, in recognition of the interaction with devolved policy matters,.
	When the Joint Committee has finished its scrutiny, the Government will reflect on its recommendations. We will continue the legislative process by introducing a Bill for full debate and scrutiny as soon as possible thereafter.
	I have set out in some detail for the House the background to the draft legislation that I am publishing today, and the respective roles of Government and Parliament in resolving this issue. I commend this statement to the House.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the Justice Secretary for allowing advance sight of his statement. This issue has been controversial since the 2004 Hirst v. UK case
	when the European Court of Human Rights ruled our blanket ban on prisoner voting was contrary to article 3, protocol 1 of the convention. The Labour Government disagreed with the Court’s decision. It is not, and never has been, Labour’s position to give prisoners the vote. That is why we appealed the decision and continued to challenge it until we lost office.
	Under this Government, I am afraid, there has been a lack of consistency on prisoner voting. On 20 December 2010—the last day before the Christmas recess—this Government snuck out a written ministerial statement announcing that prisoners on sentences of under four years would get the vote. This meant roughly 30,000 prisoners getting the vote. Information we sought showed that 4,188 offenders convicted and sent to prison for burglary would get the vote—so much for this Government being on the side of innocent homeowners. Had the Government’s original plans gone ahead, 5,991 offenders convicted of violence against the person, 1,700 offenders convicted for sexual offences and even 67 rapists would also have been given the vote. I asked the Government at the time for their legal advice that supported giving violent and serious prisoners the vote, but they declined to provide it. The Government then performed one of their earlier U-turns and in a debate on 10 February 2011, Back Benchers from all sides voted overwhelmingly to maintain the status quo.
	I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General appealed to the European Court again in the Grand Chamber this year, but many of us remember the previous Lord Chancellor boasting that he would use our once-in-a-generation opportunity of chairing the Council of Europe to ensure that the European Court changed the rules so that civic and social issues such as this would not be adjudicated on in this way. Once again, the Government over-promised and under-delivered.
	We will digest the details of the draft Bill, and will work with the Government to ensure that it receives the pre-legislative scrutiny that it deserves. Like my predecessors in the last Labour Government, I am unhappy with the European Court’s ruling on prisoner voting. I think that the Court got it wrong. This is not a case of our Government failing to hold free or fair elections, or an issue of massive electoral fraud; it is a case of offenders, sent to prison by judges, being denied the right and the privilege of voting, as they are denied other rights and privileges. This issue should be within the margin of appreciation that nation states are given by the European Court.
	Let me make clear that I am passionate about punishing and reforming offenders. I believe in intervening aggressively to address the offending behaviour of prisoners, ensuring that they can read and write, addressing alcohol and drug dependency, treating mental illness, providing job training so that prisoners can find employment later, enabling them to work in prison and to find somewhere to live, providing a mentor to help them with those tasks, and much more. I meet many offenders, ex-offenders and experts, and I know that the idea that depriving prisoners of their votes makes them more likely to reoffend —or less likely to reintegrate themselves in society—is absurd.
	That being said, I respect the rule of law, and we must uphold it. We do not and cannot abide only by judgments with which we agree. This issue is part of the bigger picture of our membership of the European convention,
	a membership of which Labour Members are proud. We acknowledge its role in protecting human rights throughout Europe for more than 60 years, and the fact that it gives the United Kingdom more leverage over other countries that are less scrupulous in their approach to human rights. It allows us to press others to improve their human rights records, just as the Foreign Secretary rightly did this week with the Syrian opposition coalition.
	Parliamentarians need to know the Government’s legal advice on what is needed to enable our obligations under the convention to be discharged. We also need to be clear about the ramifications of any decisions that Parliament makes, as there is a risk that choosing the wrong option could lead to compensation claims from prisoners and to our being in breach of the rule of law. That is why I wrote to the Justice Secretary last week—as I did to his predecessor—to request that his legal advice be published so that Members in all parts of the House could make an informed judgment. He has not responded yet.
	I should be grateful if the Lord Chancellor would answer a number of questions. Will he make available to the House the legal advice on which his draft Bill relies, and if not, why not? Does he agree with all the Attorney-General’s views on this matter? When will Parliament vote on his three options, and which of them will he recommend to the Joint Committee and the House? Finally, will he confirm that no compensation will be paid as a result of the announcement that he has made today?

Chris Grayling: I am sorry that the shadow Justice Secretary did not take the measured approach that was taken by the shadow Home Secretary at the weekend. When he talks of a lack of consistency and commitment, he should remember that the Attorney-General went personally to Strasbourg to argue the case for this country. That does not suggest to me any lack of determination on the Government’s part.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the previous Lord Chancellor. I pay tribute to him for the progress that he made in the Brighton declaration. These are not easy matters. We are dealing with a very large number of countries, and it is difficult to reach unanimous agreement. I think that my predecessor took a good first step towards securing the reforms that are needed—and I agree that reforms are needed: indeed, I personally take the view that further reforms are needed. I think that I have been very clear about that over the past few weeks. Unless and until such reforms happen, however, we must also recognise the reality of our international obligations, and Parliament must decide what approach it wants this country to take. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I am not entirely certain what approach he wants us to take, but I think it important for Parliament to be in a position to make the decision.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the legal advice. I do not think that the Attorney-General’s views on this matter are any great secret: he has given evidence to Committees of this House during the last few weeks. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that on no occasion under the last Government was advice given to them by the Attorney-General willingly published. However, I will give careful thought to the issues that he
	has raised. I want to be as helpful as possible to the Joint Committee, and I am willing to consider what methods are available to us that are appropriate and follow due precedent.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked for clarification of the implications of all this. It involves complex matters that need to be discussed by Parliament, which is precisely why we need pre-legislative scrutiny and should not head straight into a Bill. Both this Government and the last Government have talked about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny, and this is exactly the kind of Bill that requires it. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about voting intentions. That is a matter for the House to consider. When we reach the point at which a Bill is before the House, every Member will consider how he or she wishes to vote, but, for now, let us wait and see what the Committee comes up with.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman’s question about compensation, I hope that the Court will—as it should—view my announcement as the first step in the process that it has asked us to complete, and that the issues to which he referred will not arise.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. There is much interest in the statement, and I am keen to accommodate it, but I remind the House that there is a further piece of business within the hands of the Government to follow, and then three pieces of business under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, the last of which, in particular, is very heavily subscribed. I am keen to accommodate the interest, but I appeal to colleagues to help me to help them, and that is done through brevity.

Alan Beith: If the House agrees to the establishment of a Joint Committee, should not that Committee consider other options, such as restoring voting rights only in the last stages of a sentence? What makes me feel sick is the thought either of criminals cashing in from compensation because we have not sorted this out, or of Britain using the same arguments against international human rights jurisdictions as states with truly appalling human rights records.

Chris Grayling: Let me say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the different options that it will be for the Committee to decide whether there are other elements that it wishes to see in a Bill. We have tried to put together a simple framework within which consultation and discussion can take place. That will undoubtedly involve considering whether there are other options, in terms of either the scope of the Bill or some of the operational issues that underpin it.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about other countries, I must make clear that I do not equate a legitimate democratic debate about these matters in this democratic House of Parliament with some of the extraordinary abuses of human rights that we have seen elsewhere in the past, and all too often today. These are very different issues.

Jack Straw: Does the Justice Secretary accept that on matters of fundamental human rights, the United Kingdom, under successive Governments,
	has been impeccable in observing the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, even—for example, in respect of terrorist suspects—when it has disagreed profoundly with those decisions? Long may that continue.
	Given that we are talking about the rule of law, does the Justice Secretary also accept that—in breach of ideas of the rule of law that are based on consent—the Strasbourg Court has extended its jurisdiction from fundamental human rights to social and civic rights, for which we have not signed up? As Lord Hoffmann, the former Law Lord, has said, the Court “lacks constitutional legitimacy” in respect of such matters, and
	“has no mandate to unify the laws of Europe”
	on subjects of this kind.

Chris Grayling: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I think it is worth recalling that when the convention was written, back in the 1950s, Stalin was in power in Russia and people were being sent to the gulags without trial. That is what the convention was all about, but over the past 50 or 60 years the Court has moved it away from those fundamentals, and into a territory that many of us find deeply unsettling and wrong. I think there is a compelling case for reform, but while the current situation continues, we must none the less respect the laws of which we are part, and put to Parliament the questions that I am putting to it today.

David Davis: As the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has just demonstrated, this is a non-partisan, parliamentary issue—a matter of debate across the House. In that context, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on doing exactly the right thing in the Bill and handing the decision back to Parliament. I am sure, given the debate that the right hon. Gentleman and I secured some time ago, that the House will effectively decide on the status quo, but that is for the House to decide. If that is what the House decides, does he accept that it will set a precedent, and that every time the European Court goes beyond the remit set by the treaty, to which we did sign up, Parliament will reserve the right to correct it and put things back into proper law?

Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend has set out clearly the legal position: Parliament has that right. It has been endorsed in the comments made to a Committee of this House by the Attorney-General, as it was in the House of Lords 13 years ago by Lord Justice Hoffmann. That is the legal position—Parliament is sovereign, and long should it remain so.

Paul Flynn: Are we not in grave danger of insisting on the British way on a relatively insignificant matter and giving an open invitation to other, oppressive countries in Europe to mistreat their prisoners? I recall meeting a woman in a Turkish jail who had been given a 35-year sentence for murdering her abusive husband. As someone who has been involved in these matters for the past 15 years in Europe, may I say that we are sending out a signal that other countries may behave in line with their own national interests and traditions, and that those traditions are to oppress their prisoners and to ignore human rights?

Chris Grayling: If the Court in Strasbourg were following those fundamental principles to which the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred a moment ago and concentrated on serious human rights problems, the issues we are talking about today simply would not have arisen.

Mr Speaker: It is time to call a knight of the realm. I call Sir Gerald Howarth.

Gerald Howarth: In thanking you, Mr Speaker, and in congratulating my right hon. Friend, may I suggest to him that it is an affront to the British people that judges from such A-list countries as Andorra, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg should be seeking to usurp the judgments of this sovereign Parliament? In so doing, they have, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) implied, discredited themselves. It is not we who are discredited by this judgment; it is they who have discredited the Court.

Chris Grayling: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on these matters. What I would say as Lord Chancellor is that it is important always to remember that judges, whoever they are and in whichever court they are, be it the European Court or a national court, have the right to reach the decisions they reach. We may violently disagree with those decisions, but they have the right to reach them, and it would be a sad day when they no longer had that right. Our job and duty as legislators—the job of national Parliaments such as this—is to exercise sovereignty when we wish to do so. If we do not like the decisions that judges take, we always have at our disposal the ability to change the law. My statement today indicates to Parliament that the legal precedents before it are very clear: it has the right to disagree with the decisions reached in the Court in Strasbourg, but it would be for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to exercise that sovereignty.

Dave Watts: Do the Government want to pass this decision to Parliament without providing it with the legal advice or any estimate of the potential compensation claims that might be met if we do not comply?

Chris Grayling: Absolutely not; I intend to be as helpful as possible to Parliament. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already been extensive in his evidence-giving to Parliament about the legal position. There is no secret and nothing to hide; we want Parliament to have access to all the sensible advice. I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend will be willing to give evidence before the Joint Committee.

Peter Bottomley: Just because there may be a bipartisan consensus does not mean that it is right or rational, and it certainly does not include me. May I volunteer to serve on this Joint Committee, and may I ask those who give evidence the following? Is denying the vote to someone who has been sentenced to jail after being convicted of a crime a deterrent? It clearly is not. Is it a punishment, given that most criminals have not voted in their lives? Is it a
	penance? Or is it part of rehabilitation? Having discussed Strasbourg, we ought to start discussing why we are doing this to prisoners.

Chris Grayling: It is clearly a matter for Parliament to decide. There may be divided opinions, in different ways, on whether or not to give votes to prisoners and on which form any reform should take. That will be debated in the coming months, but surely it is ultimately the job of Parliament to decide which of many options it wishes to adopt.

Valerie Vaz: Can the Lord Chancellor confirm the position on judges’ discretion on sentencing and the sentencing guidelines? Is there room in the Bill for that, given that the length of sentences could change over time?

Chris Grayling: It would not be my intention to try to add additional dimensions to the Bill. It is important that it concentrates on the core issues in relation to prisoner voting and the decisions of the European Court. There will be other opportunities to debate matters relating to sentencing when we discuss Bills that are before the other place and will, I trust, be before this House in the coming years.

Nick de Bois: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust position. Can he confirm that the legal advice is that Parliament, not the European Court, has the final say? Will Ministers be free to vote for no change?

Chris Grayling: As regards voting, I shall leave that question until we see what the Committee has brought forward. As for Parliament having the final say, I can tell my hon. Friend that it absolutely does so. That is clearly what the Law Lords ruled 13 years ago and it is clearly what the Attorney-General has advised. It is also absolutely right—our national Parliament should be sovereign.

Jonathan Reynolds: Let us suppose that this House were to accept the most modest of the Minister’s extensions of voting rights to prisoners—the option for sentences of less than six months. What assurances can he give us that at some point in future that, in itself, would not be found to be incompatible by the European Court?

Chris Grayling: It is unlikely; the indications from the Court are that a level of reform of that kind would be sufficient to satisfy it that we had conformed to the judgment. That is one reason we have put that option in the Bill for consideration. A number of people have suggested more minor changes, but we do not believe that those would be sufficient to satisfy the Court. One can never say never about anything, but our expectation and belief is that that option would end this matter for the foreseeable future.

Eleanor Laing: What sanctions are available to the European Court of Human Rights to apply against the UK Government if they are judged not to have complied with the judgment sent down?

Chris Grayling: Ultimately, if this Parliament decides not to agree to rulings from the ECHR, it has no sanction. It can apply fines in absentia, but it will be for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to recognise those decisions, as it is with all decisions. Of course, as Lord Justice Hoffmann said in 1999, there are political consequences for the UK if Parliament chooses to take that decision.

Eilidh Whiteford: It is right and proper that convicted prisoners should not be able to vote while they are in prison. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to consult the Scottish Government at the pre-legislative stage, but may I seek his assurance that he will prioritise keeping to a minimum the burden on the Scottish Prison Service, the Scottish Court Service and those who administer elections?

Chris Grayling: I will certainly give the hon. Lady that commitment. I should say that I spoke to the Scottish Justice Secretary this morning ahead of this statement, as I did to his counterparts in the other devolved Administrations. It is important that they play a part in the discussions that lie ahead. Of course, one factor that needs to be a part of the discussion is what the burdens will be on those who have to administer systems to provide prisoners with the vote, if indeed that is what Parliament chooses to do.

Julian Huppert: Prison governors have more regular contact with prisoners than any of us in this House. Does the Justice Secretary therefore agree with the past president of the Prison Governors Association, who has said:
	“The blanket ban on sentenced prisoners’ voting is out of step in a modern prison service and runs counter to resettlement work which aims to ensure that prisoners lead a responsible, law-abiding life on release”?

Chris Grayling: What my hon. Friend has just brought before the House is one example of the kind of views I expect to be submitted to the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the views of prison governors will be listened to with interest.

Diana Johnson: Of the 43 member countries of the European conventions, which ones maintain a blanket ban on prisoner voting?

Chris Grayling: Seven countries have done so. Most recently, Italy was before the Court and has made an amendment to its system. Of course, each country will form its own decision based on the system it has in place and the sovereignty of its Parliament. There has been some suggestion that ours is the only country that has even contemplated failing to implement a decision of the European Court, but I should tell the House that if we look at the record of different members of the Council of Europe for implementing decisions over the years, we see that this country stands near the top of the list.

Robert Buckland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to nail the myth about the so-called blanket ban? We do not have a blanket ban in this country; remand prisoners, contemnors and fine defaulters retain the right to vote. Will he
	assure me that it is for this Parliament to consider a range of options, which I hope the Joint Committee will consider carefully?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point about those in our prisons who vote, including fine defaulters, people on remand and people who are between verdict and sentence. I can give him an absolutely clear assurance that it will be for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to see more prisoners with the vote or simply to retain the number at that level.

William Bain: The Secretary of State will know that the Edinburgh agreement devolves the franchise in the forthcoming independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament but that Acts of the Scottish Parliament have a very different relationship with the European convention on human rights from Acts of this Parliament. Have the Scottish Government contacted him to put on record their position about whether prisoners will have the right to vote in the referendum? Should any prisoner decide to sue, will that Government or this Government be liable in the courts?

Chris Grayling: The legal position is very clear: this is a reserved matter for this Parliament and not for the devolved Assemblies. As I mentioned, I have already had a discussion with the Scottish Justice Secretary. Clearly, one issue that will have to be addressed in the pre-legislative process is what will happen with the Scottish referendum. We have already started that conversation and it will continue.

Edward Leigh: Should we not set store by precedent? Am I right in believing that when we signed up to the convention, before the 1960s, those serving as misdemeanours for fewer than six months were allowed to vote but felons serving for more than six months could not? Of course we must be sovereign, but is that not the sort of compromise that could be reached to ensure our continued membership of the Council of Europe?

Chris Grayling: That is a very interesting point. It will be for my hon. Friend, given his expertise on these matters, to make representations to the consultative Committee, which we hope will be able to consider all these issues before it forms a view of what this Parliament should do.

Derek Twigg: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which was very clear. I understand that no matter what the European Court says in the future, if Parliament decides that prisoners will not get the vote, with which I agree completely, that is the end of the matter. What if compensation claims are still made and won in the European Court? Will the Government refuse to pay out any compensation?

Chris Grayling: If Parliament decides not to change the current position, that will clearly, as per the ruling from Lord Justice Hoffmann, generate a political issue between the United Kingdom and the Council of Europe. The Joint Committee will wish to consider that as part of its deliberations. As for the consequences, we cannot know what they will be until that decision has been
	taken. The legal position is very clear. The hon. Gentleman mentioned fines, and as I said earlier, this Parliament is ultimately sovereign and can decide whether it will accept a ruling of the European Court of any sort or whether it will not.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to get everybody in and do not want to disappoint anyone, so we need short questions and speedy answers.

Thomas Docherty: Many members of the public will believe that this decision is because of the Human Rights Act. As the Lord Chancellor has said very clearly that it is not, will he confirm whether he supports repealing that Act?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the question refers back to the original convention and the structures that have been in place since the 1950s. I support reform of that system and I have been quite clear that I intend on behalf of my party to introduce proposals before the next election. If the whole House decides to adopt those proposals, that will be great. Otherwise, we will fight the campaign on them.

Peter Bone: Will not the whole of the British people welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Justice has come to the Dispatch Box and put their views first, making this Parliament sovereign and ignoring the Mickey Mouse court in Europe?

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. He has been a great champion of the rights of Parliament and I think that Parliament’s role in this and other matters is enormously important. I am very glad to put it at the centre of a vital decision for this country.

James Clappison: May I commend the approach taken by my right hon. Friend? This is a matter for Parliament and Parliament alone to decide, but the processes he has outlined to the House today, including pre-legislative scrutiny, will take some time. Can he assure me it that will be drawn to the attention of the Court that this House will need a proper amount of time to consider these detailed matters and for reflection?

Chris Grayling: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a part of the legislative process that is now supported strongly on both sides of the House. It has been used on many occasions for other Bills. In the case of a Bill as controversial and with as many permutations as this one, I shall make it very clear to the Court that this is the start of a parliamentary process and an important part of the response to what it has asked us to do.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Many people will accept that prisoners serving custodial sentences rightly surrender many of their civil and social privileges and rights. What does the Secretary of State think about
	the proposal that one determining factor on reinstating any of those rights to vote should be proximity to the end of a sentence?

Chris Grayling: There is a perfectly coherent argument to be made by those who believe that, and it is undoubtedly one of the areas I expect to be discussed by the consultative Committee. I should also say that I would expect the different Select Committees with an involvement in this area to want to contribute to the process, too. I have no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman has just described will be one of the options discussed.

Caroline Dinenage: The option that gives prisoners with lower sentences the opportunity to vote would therefore include some prisoners who have been convicted of electoral fraud. Does the Secretary of State regard that as appropriate?

Chris Grayling: We have different rules for those convicted of electoral fraud, who are banned from voting for an extended period. The Government have no plans to change that, but the issue will be discussed as part of the review process and we will see the will of Parliament. I do not believe that that is necessarily the same legal issue as the broader one about the availability to prisoners of the right to vote.

Christopher Chope: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on emphasising the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. In that context, will he assure us that this is not an area in which the European Union and the fundamental rights agency have any competence whatsoever?

Chris Grayling: I wish I could give my hon. Friend that complete assurance, but there is another case pending on the right to vote on European elections, rather than national elections, that will be heard in our Supreme Court next summer. That is another thing that is not entirely welcome, but we will have to see what the judgment is when the time comes.

Ann Coffey: I am still not clear about the issue of compensation. What advice has the Secretary of State received about what the situation will be if Parliament restates the present position and current prisoners decide to claim compensation?

Chris Grayling: The legal position remains that Parliament has the right to say no to any decision of the European Court of Human Rights, whatever that might be. It is clear that that is its absolute right but, as Lord Justice Hoffmann said, there is a political consequence of doing so. I do not make light of the challenge or debate that would follow if the decision were not to give prisoners the vote.

Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State has just mentioned that a number of leading EU countries have ignored judgments of the ECHR on the grounds of parliamentary sovereignty. It was stated at the time that their international reputation in various forums, such as the UN Human Rights Council, would suffer. Is there any evidence of that happening and has any analysis being carried out?

Chris Grayling: I have no evidence of such issues. Some people have suggested that if Parliament chooses to exercise its right of sovereignty, the UK would become a pariah state, but I must say very clearly that I simply do not accept that. I believe that Parliament has the right to exercise its sovereignty. It will be for Parliament to decide in this situation whether it wishes to exercise that sovereignty, but I do not believe that if it chooses to do so, Britain will somehow turn into a nation with an appalling human rights record. Our human rights record stands comparison with anyone’s.

Roger Gale: As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue with senior members of the European Court of Human Rights in a particular context. There are 47 member states of the Council of Europe and very many of them—France is one; Malta is another—hold prisoners for very long periods without trial in clear breach of the convention on human rights, about which the ECHR chooses to do precisely nothing. Would it not be a good idea for the ECHR to concentrate on enforcing article 5 and such matters rather than meddling, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has said, in matters that are not even within its remit?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the problem; at the moment, we have a Court that is drowning in hundreds of thousands of cases in areas that the originators of the convention would never have considered relevant to what they were creating. That has taken the judges in Strasbourg away from the fundamental principles that they are supposed to be there to protect, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

Robert Halfon: The European convention on human rights was set up in the aftermath of the second world war to ensure that the horrors of Nazi Germany never happened again. It was never the intention of its framers to give Albert Speer and Rudolf Hess the vote. Does not that make it clear that there is a difference between the convention and the Court? That is why Parliament will have a moral mandate to defy the Court.

Chris Grayling: I really believe that is the central issue, which is why I feel so passionately that we need to reform the system, which has moved a long way from the noble motives of its conservative creators, who were trying to address some of the appalling situations that people in Europe found themselves in at the time. It was not about whether prisoners had the right to vote; it was about people being put in mental hospitals for the rest of their lives without trial as an excuse for taking them out of the political process. That is the kind of thing we should be fighting.

David Ruffley: I congratulate the Secretary of State on doing something previous Secretaries of State for Justice have not done, which is invoke parliamentary sovereignty, but I gently suggest that that takes us only so far. It is likely that ambulance-chasing compensation claims will be made, so will he indicate what steps he is taking now, by way of contingency planning, to prevent any prisoners from
	making claims, in either the European Court of Human Rights or English courts, for denial of their alleged human rights?

Chris Grayling: I cannot say too much about all the detailed plans I have at the moment—I am in the early stages of thinking through some of the broader issues—but one point I will make is that I have asked the question about the use of the legal aid system for purposes that I do not believe it was designed for. I hope to bring forward further thoughts on that before too long.

Guy Opperman: I draw the House’s attention to my recently published book on prison reform.
	I have represented hundreds of people who were in prison, not one of whom ever said to my good self that they were busting for a chance to vote; I assure the Secretary of State that that was not the intention of many I represented. What is the proposal in the option for considering short sentences of a few weeks or even a few days in custody?

Chris Grayling: Under the proposal to give the vote to prisoners who have received a sentence of either six months or less or four years or less, someone given a very short sentence would be eligible for a postal vote in prison. Of course, whether or not they are given that vote would depend on what Parliament and this House decide.

Philip Hollobone: I am appalled by the lack of legal training for so many of the so-called judges of the European Court of Human Rights, incensed by the Court’s repeated attempts to traduce the sovereignty of the British Parliament, and cognisant of the fact that there would be no Court and no human rights in Europe if this country had not stood alone against Hitler in 1940. My constituents want their MP to vote to ban prisoners from voting, and in that they will not be disappointed.

Chris Grayling: We have had one or two early statements of intent from Members, some of which have not surprised me at all. I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about these matters and is an effective advocate for both his constituency and his point of view on these issues, which I know is shared across the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) made clear, those views are not unanimous across the House and, therefore, I think that we will have a constructive and lively debate before Parliament reaches its view on the way forward.

Dan Byles: I strongly welcome the stance my right hon. Friend has taken. Does he agree that everybody supports the concept of genuine human rights but it is this sort of nonsense, whereby the Court interferes in the internal affairs of a country with an impeccable record and tries to micro-manage our system, that gives the whole concept of human rights a bad name and undermines the work the Court should be doing?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree. It is a little-known fact that at university I was chairman of the Amnesty International group and campaigned for Soviet prisoners
	of conscience. That work is a world away from some of the areas the Court is currently considering, which is why I believe it needs serious reform.

Mark Menzies: I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments today about Parliament being sovereign on this issue and on how he is vigilant on legal aid. It would be completely unacceptable to my constituents to see legal aid paid to convicted criminals.

Chris Grayling: On legal aid, there will always be people we might find repellent but for whom we must provide financial support so that they can defend themselves in a fair and open justice system, but that does not mean that our legal aid system should be open to abuse for purposes it is not intended to serve. That is why I have asked my officials to look closely at that area and consider what changes are necessary.

Tessa Munt: Will the Secretary of State clarify that it will be open to Parliament to decide that non-violent offences tried summarily by the magistrates would comply with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights and that using the sentencing guidelines and the experience of the judiciary, which is independent of interference and hears the evidence, should be a vehicle for deciding whether or not prisoners are entitled to vote?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend has put forward a further option for the eventual legislation, and I encourage her to take it to the Committee for its consideration.

Mark Pawsey: My constituents are horrified by the prospect of prisoners being given an entitlement to vote. Further to the issue of those given short sentences, will the Secretary of State comment on the position of offenders who are given community sentences?

Chris Grayling: Those who are given community sentences are currently still able to vote and we have no intention of changing that, although one option that has been adopted in some other European countries, Italy particularly, is having tighter rules for those released after a prison sentence. That is clearly an option that the Committee might wish to consider.

Margot James: I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that he will uphold our obligations under international law. I welcome the middle option of six months or fewer as something that those of us who are not implacably opposed to prisoners having the right to vote under any circumstances could consider. Will he qualify that further and comment on whether further restrictions could be added to that option—for example, eliminating from the list of eligible people those who have a record of violence or taking into consideration their previous convictions?

Chris Grayling: Those issues could certainly be discussed, but the Court has indicated to us that, were we to implement a measure that took the bar lower than the six-month sentence point, it would be unlikely to see our approach as compliant with the original ruling. Whether an exception for violence could be made is a matter that needs careful consideration in Committee.
	I do not have the legal basis to rule it in or out at the moment, but the six-month threshold is certainly where the Court has indicated that it sees the line being drawn.

Neil Parish: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is it fundamentally wrong for prisoners to be given the vote, but it is British courts that see all the evidence and take away the freedom of those people, so why on earth should it be European courts that overrule us?

Chris Grayling: As a great believer in the principle of subsidiarity, I think that, where possible, national courts should take decisions on all but the highest points of principle. That, of course, is not where we are at the moment with the European Court of Human Rights, which is taking decisions on issues that, in my view, should certainly be a matter for national courts.

Andrew Bridgen: The Secretary of State is absolutely right: this is not just about the important matter of prisoner voting; it is about the even more important matter of the very sovereignty of this House and this Parliament. To that end, can he reconfirm that the legal advice is clear and unequivocal that it is this Parliament, not the European Court of Human Rights, that has the final say on this important matter?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely confirm that. That advice has come from distinguished legal figures at both ends of this Parliament, from the former Law Lord, Lord Justice Hoffmann, and a current distinguished legal figure, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who have given identical advice on the sovereignty of Parliament and its right to take the final decision on the matter.

David Nuttall: I warmly welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement and look forward to being able to vote again in favour of maintaining the status quo. In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend please confirm that the pre-legislative scrutiny will in no way be rushed and that when the Joint Committee comes to consider the draft Bill every single issue will be explored and every interested person will be given the time and opportunity to put their views in full and to be examined about them?

Chris Grayling: Given the wide range of views expressed in the House today, it is clear that there will be an extensive and broad-ranging debate, and it would be entirely wrong to curtail the parliamentary process and prevent legitimate views from being heard.

Michael Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility? Prisoners are in prison precisely because they have shown a lack of responsibility, so they should not have the right to make decisions over other people by voting in elections.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend has articulated one of the clear views held in the House on this issue. The issue commands very strong opinions, and I believe that
	today I have offered Members such as my hon. Friend the opportunity not simply to express their view, but to vote to express it.

Glyn Davies: I absolutely agree that deciding whether prisoners should have the right to vote is properly a matter for this Parliament, but I am concerned that the United Kingdom may well find itself either asked to pay fines or outside the judgment of the European Court. Britain has an admirable reputation for leading the world in respect of the rule of law, so will my right hon. Friend work with the other 46 members of the Council of Europe to find ways of avoiding the confrontation we seem to be heading for, which will almost inevitably involve curtailing the ambitions and scope of the European Court?

Chris Grayling: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is my view that reform must come, and I am very pleased to have heard today that that is clearly the view of Opposition Members as well. The former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), made a good start with the work done before the Brighton declaration, but my view is that there is a long way still to go on this matter.

Justin Tomlinson: Parliament is rightly seeking to reflect the public’s horror at the prospect of prisoners getting the vote, so why not tap into that by putting the options in a referendum coinciding with the next police and crime commissioner elections, in which we want more people to vote?

Chris Grayling: That is an intriguing idea, but, sadly, I think the European Court will not allow us to wait four more years before reaching a final decision on this matter. I think Parliament will have to vote before then.

BILLS PRESENTED

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Secretary Theresa May, supported by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Secretary Chris Grayling, Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Secretary Maria Miller, the Attorney-General and Damian Green, presented a Bill to make provision about interviews held during certain investigations under schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002; and about the application of part 2 of that Act to matters occurring before April 2004.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 93) with explanatory notes (Bill 93-EN).

Equality Act 2010 (Amendment ) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Frank Field, supported by Diana Johnson, Andrew George and Mrs Eleanor Laing, presented a Bill to amend the Equality Act 2010 to remove discrimination against women in relation to consecration of bishops in the Church of England; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 94).

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Mark Harper: I beg to move,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.
	The Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan, known as Ansaru, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the eleventh proscription order under that Act.
	Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation
	“is concerned in terrorism if it—
	(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
	(b) prepares for terrorism,
	(c) promotes or encourages terrorism”—
	including the unlawful glorification of terrorism, or—
	“(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”
	If the test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.
	In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in dealing with counter-terrorism matters. I had not realised the Immigration Minister was now going to be responsible for counter-terrorism within the Home Office, but I am glad he has got this portfolio as well. Is there any indication as to how many supporters Ansaru has in the UK?

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, may be pleased or disappointed to know that I am handling this order, but my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, retains responsibility for security matters. He is out of the country today on Government business, so I am dealing with the order on his behalf.
	I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not answer the question he asks. There are things I am not able to say in the House, based on intelligence issues. If he will forgive me, I would prefer not to answer his question directly.
	Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation concerned. That includes open-source material, intelligence material, legal advice and advice that reflects consultation across government,
	including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.
	Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that Ansaru is concerned in terrorism. Members will appreciate that I am unable to go into detail, but I can provide a brief summary. Ansaru is an Islamist terrorist organisation, based in Nigeria, which publicly emerged in January 2012. It is motivated by an anti-Nigerian Government and an anti-Western agenda, and is broadly aligned with al-Qaeda. It is believed to be responsible for the murders of British national, Christopher McManus, and his Italian co-worker. Franco Lamolinara, in March 2012.
	In conclusion, for these reasons I believe it is right that we add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisations under schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I commend the motion to the House.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for his statement, and congratulate him on his pronunciation of the full name of this group. I shall refer to it as Ansaru.
	We support the Government on issues of national security and work with them on the basis of cross-party co-operation. As the Government are acting today against a group that was identified as an independent entity only in January 2012, I commend them on their speedy action.
	As the Minister has said, under section 3 of the 2000 Terrorism Act a group can be proscribed if it
	“(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism, .
	(b) prepares for terrorism,
	(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
	(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”
	Obviously, the Opposition are at a disadvantage in evaluating the evidence against such groups, as we do not have access to the same intelligence data as the Government. However, based on what is in the public domain and the brief summary the Minister was able to give today, we are satisfied that the Home Secretary is justified in coming to the conclusion that Ansaru meets these criteria, and we will support the motion.
	Members will be particularly concerned to hear about possible links between Ansaru and the kidnap of Chris McManus and his Italian colleague, Franco Lamolinara. The treatment of Mr McManus and Mr Lamolinara was barbaric and despicable, and it is right that the UK Government should take action against any group that commits such acts of terror against UK citizens.
	Ansaru has also been linked to the long-established Boko Haram sect, which is not proscribed. I hope the Minister will commit today to keep the status of Boko Haram under review. So far the actions of this group have been largely confined to Nigeria, but I hope the Government will act to proscribe Boko Haram if links to the UK emerge.
	Finally, I remind the Minister of his party’s commitment, made repeatedly when it was in opposition, including by the now Prime Minister, to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Conservatives have now been in power for two and a
	half years, yet Hizb ut-Tahrir is still a legal organisation in the UK. Now that the Minister has the responsibilities of government I wonder whether, in respect of that organisation, he regrets playing politics with national security while in opposition.

Keith Vaz: I fully support the motion that the Government have put before the House today. One of the features of the fight against terrorism is that the Front-Bench teams unite as they have today in supporting what the Home Secretary proposes.
	We must, of course, give the Home Secretary the benefit of the doubt. I am sure she has looked at this case very carefully indeed. I am certain that she, like previous Home Secretaries, does not take lightly the decision to proscribe an organisation. However, I want to raise a number of concerns that I have raised in the past, and that the Select Committee has raised, that have not been really been answered by the Government. I am glad to see here the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is also a member of the Select Committee and who played a leading part in producing the report that we published at the end of last year on the roots of radicalism.
	Of course it is right that when the Government have the evidence, and the security services and others give advice to the Home Secretary, they should initiate a ban. Despite the fact that we have had successive orders on the Floor of the House that have gone through relatively quickly because of the support of the Opposition, the concern expressed by the Select Committee, which has not really been answered, is that the orders are not time-limited. Once the proscription is put in place, there is no revisiting it unless there is an application by the group concerned to get itself de-proscribed.
	In the time that I have been in the House, there has been only one example of a group being de-proscribed. That was the People’s Mujahedeen, which in the end had to go to court in order to get the proscription lifted by the then Government. The concerns that I have raised have been raised with me and with the Home Affairs Committee by a number of groups including, for example, members of the Tamil community, who were concerned at the banning of the LTTE, an organisation that no longer exists, whose leaders have been executed or dissipated. It does not function, yet that proscription remains in force. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have members of the Tamil community in their constituencies and they have raised this concern. That is why it is important that the Government should take a view on the matter.
	Whenever Ministers have come to the House before to talk about proscribing organisations—in this case, Ansaru—we have raised the point but we have never received a response with a definitive answer. David Anderson, QC, the reviewer of counter-terrorism appointed by the Government, has favoured a time limit. In Australia there is a time limit of two years. There should perhaps be not an automatic de-proscription, but at least the opportunity for senior Home Office officials to review the decision and to see whether the organisation has changed. One of the points that was made to the Home Secretary the last time she used proscription against an organisation—I think it was Muslims Against Crusades—
	was that organisations can change their name, but still function. By changing their name, they become, in a sense, a new organisation.
	The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) about Hizb ut-Tahrir are relevant. I know the Prime Minister is very keen to ban this organisation. He has said so as Leader of the Opposition and as Prime Minister, but he has come up against advice that has been given, presumably, by those who give advice whose names we do not know —obviously, because by the nature of their job they have to operate in the shadows. They have clearly said to the Home Secretary that in respect of Hizb ut-Tahrir there is no case to proscribe, but there is in respect of Ansaru.
	We in the House probably know more about Hizb ut-Tahrir than we do about Ansaru. Many of us, myself included, probably discovered this organisation only when we knew that a proscription order was going to be issued on the Floor of the House today. In the case of Hizb ut-Tahrir, we know what its members are up to, we know about their activities, we know what they have said, but still they are not proscribed.
	It may seem odd that Members are asking for more proscription and at the same time are asking for time limits, but when an organisation ceases to exist and members of settled communities, though not members of that organisation, are loosely associated because they come from the same geographical area, such as members of the Tamil community who are settled in this country, obviously there are concerns.
	I hope that when the Minister replies, he will at least give us some indication—I appreciate that this is not his area of responsibility—when we will know that the Government have made up their mind in respect of the response to the Select Committee’s report published a year ago. That will assist us, as I am sure it will assist David Anderson, QC, in our deliberations on this very important subject. On the substance of the order, I fully support what the Government are doing today. I have faith in the Home Secretary’s judgment. I know that she would do this only if she felt that it was the right thing to do, and I hope the order will go through with the support of the whole House.

Mark Harper: Let me deal with the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The hon. Lady spoke on behalf of the Opposition, and I thank her for their support, as I thank the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for his support. This is always a difficult area, because as the hon. Lady said, there are things that the Government know which they are not able to share publicly. I am grateful for what she and the Chairman of the Select Committee said about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
	Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It makes it a criminal offence for a person to belong to that proscribed organisation, to invite support for it, to arrange a meeting in support of it or to wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member of that organisation. Proscribing Ansaru will
	also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any of its supporters in the UK and—picking up the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee—ensure that it cannot operate effectively in the United Kingdom.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned de-proscription. Anyone who is proscribed can apply to the Home Secretary to be de-proscribed. If that application is refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal which is able to consider the sensitive material that underpins proscription decisions.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee also mentioned the report that David Anderson, QC, has recently produced and also the Select Committee’s report. The Government have carefully noted the comments that David Anderson made in his report about the de-proscription process and the Home Secretary will respond shortly to the report, so the right hon. Gentleman may not have too long to wait to find out what the Government’s view is.

Keith Vaz: I know that we have become used to the word “shortly”, but it may well have been used a year ago, when we were told that there would be a response shortly. Is that this year? Is it next year? [ Interruption .]

Mark Harper: As my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary says, the waiting time is getting shorter. I will not put an exact date on it because when I have done that in the past, I have inevitably disappointed people. The right hon. Gentleman will clearly have less time to wait than he did when he heard a Minister say that last year.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North mentioned Boko Haram, which operates in Nigeria. For very sensible reasons, the Government do not comment on whether any group is under consideration for proscription, but we are deeply concerned about violence, whether terrorist or otherwise, in Nigeria. We remain committed to working closely with the Nigerian authorities to tackle the security situation in Nigeria. When the Prime Minister met President Jonathan in February this year, he re-affirmed our shared agenda. We have experience
	on counter-terrorism policy and various frameworks for dealing with it, and we work closely with our Nigerian colleagues to support them in any way we can in combating the security challenges that they face.
	The hon. Lady mentioned Hizb ut-Tahrir. As she knows, that organisation is not proscribed in the United Kingdom. As I said, proscription can be considered only when the Home Secretary believes that an organisation is involved in terrorism, as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000. As the right hon. Member for Leicester East suggested, it does, though, remain an organisation about which the Government have significant concerns, and we continue to monitor its activities very closely.
	The final issue that the Chairman of the Select Committee raised was organisations that change their name but not necessarily their activities. Section 3(6) of the Act allows the Home Secretary, by order, to specify an alternative name for a proscribed organisation, and we keep the list of organisations under review, including consideration of whether they are operating under any alternative aliases.

Dan Byles: Is there a streamlined process for claiming that a group with a new name is still the old group? Instead of having to start again and prove that the group under the new name is a risk, is there is a quick and simple process for saying “This is the old group under a new name”?

Mark Harper: Yes. If we proscribe a group on the basis of all the information we have about it, and it then tries to change its identity, there is provision in the Act to allow us to specify an alternative name without having to go through the process of reconsidering all the legal tests that the Home Secretary has to carry out.
	I hope that with those answers I have dealt with the questions that were raised, and that the House will support the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Universal Credit

Nigel Evans: I inform the House that by convention only Dame Anne Begg will speak in this debate. Interventions are allowed, but no other speeches.

Anne Begg: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the publication of the Third Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, on Universal Credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants, HC 576.
	Today the Work and Pensions Committee published a report, “Universal credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants”. Universal credit is a new working-age benefit that, if the various IT systems work—fingers crossed—should be easy to operate for the majority of claimants. Almost all our witnesses supported the principles of universal credit, but as we took evidence it became clear that there were concerns about how those who will find the new system difficult are to be helped. That explains the title of our report. The Government’s approach is to design a system that works for the majority before they then assess what additional support more vulnerable claimants might need. However, we have significant concerns that insufficient progress has been made in deciding what the additional support will offer, how it will be delivered, and who will qualify for it. There is therefore a risk that this help will not be in place for the implementation of universal credit in the first pathfinder areas from April next year.
	The report highlights several areas of concern. First, “digital by default”, as the Government call it, means, in effect, that all claims and all changes in circumstances will have to be submitted online, which might cause problems for a sizeable minority of people. On the single monthly payment per household, we are concerned about who within the household will be the recipient. We are worried about potential delays in the system that could mean not only that one benefit is delayed but that all moneys that are due to go into the household are stopped for one reason or another. Another concern is that under universal credit the housing costs of someone in social housing will no longer be paid directly to the landlord but will be part of the single monthly payment.
	The Government’s emphasis on planning for the majority means that that is where all the work has been done. There has not been enough detail on the so-called exceptions policy and on how people who are not managing—those who are not in the majority—will be picked up.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank my hon. Friend for presenting this very important report. I think she will agree that one of the Committee’s major concerns was that the concept of exceptions—people who might get additional help or assistance, or who might not be subject to the monthly payment rule—was very unworked-out. It would be helpful to get some of the detail so that these things are anticipated rather than dealt with once people have got into trouble.

Anne Begg: Indeed. We hope that in response to our report the Government will give more detail—put more flesh on the bones—on exactly how the exceptions service will work and how it will identify vulnerable people. I will have a bit more to say about that later.
	Another area of concern is the ambitious implementation timetable. We think that there is a danger that the Government have a degree of blind faith in thinking that all the IT systems will work. We would love to share their feeling that everything is all right, but we have seen in the past how other Government IT systems have not lived up to expectations.

Kate Green: Did the Committee note the concern of the Federation of Small Businesses that only a quarter of small businesses are aware of the need to provide real-time information to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? What did the Committee recommend as regards those communications?

Anne Begg: We heard a lot of evidence from members of employers’ organisations and from organisations representing accountants, and others, who were concerned about HMRC’s real-time information requirements, on which the system strongly depends. They felt that there was not enough knowledge among employers who will have to operate the process. One of our recommendations was that the Government should be liaising more closely with those organisations and helping with publicity. Another recommendation was that the Government should be wary of trying to keep to the ambitious timetable that has been set.
	The Committee has two other areas of concern. First, there are still decisions to be made about how to deal with passported benefits. Secondly, the decision to localise council tax benefit seems to fly completely in the face of the basic principles of universal credit. That might create extra computer problems, because the Department for Work and Pensions’ computer system would have to interface not only with the HMRC’s computer systems but those of local authorities.
	Let me look at these matters in a bit more detail. “Digital by default” sounds great in theory, but it might be more difficult to manage in practice because the number of people likely to be applying for universal credit who do not have access to a computer or are not digitally aware or computer literate will be much higher than in the general population. We are keen that the Government should lay out exactly what will happen in the case of claimants who are unable to make any kind of digital claim, because we understand that there will not be a paper form. Indeed, the Government expect that only 50% of claimants will make their claim online in 2013, when universal credit starts to be rolled out.

Nigel Mills: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech. Does she agree, though, that many people find the existing multiple claims processes very difficult to deal with and get right? Does she also agree that there are advantages to people using computers and becoming familiar with the internet because it will help them to get into work, where they may well be expected to do those things?

Anne Begg: As we say in the report, it will not be a problem for the majority of people, but it will be for some. We must remember that the people who will
	get universal credit are not just run-of-the-mill out-of-work claimants; some will have very severe disabilities because employment and support allowance is part of the new system. Some people will have quite profound barriers to accessing benefits of any kind on the internet. We hope that they will have help, but it would be useful for the Government to spell out in more detail exactly how that help will be accessed.

Jane Ellison: I am delighted to have joined the Select Committee, albeit after the evidence for this report was taken. When the Committee reviewed the draft report, we discussed the issue that many of the people who may struggle are the very people who struggle at the moment. It is important that we do not suggest that universal credit will be the source of the problem, because some of the same people struggle now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, there are opportunities in going digital such as having translation online and different ways of presenting information. A mass of paper is often more confusing.

Anne Begg: Indeed, but a large number of our witnesses said that there are people who are managing in the present system who will not necessarily manage under the new system. Somebody who is struggling at the moment with a paper form will almost definitely struggle with an online form, but there are people who can manage a paper form who will not be able to manage an online form.
	As housing benefit will go not to the landlord but to the individual, there are other groups that the current system supports who might have difficulties managing under universal credit.

Andrew Smith: Given the difficulty that many people have accessing applications through IT, does my hon. Friend recognise that this change will lead to a massive surge in demand for the help of advice centres? Does she have any thoughts on the additional support that such centres will require to help those people?

Anne Begg: Indeed, the report makes a strong recommendation on ensuring sufficient funds to support Citizens Advice and other advice and welfare rights groups. When they appeared before us, Ministers promised that there would be additional resources for such organisations. There is a recognition that that there will be difficulties, certainly with initial claims and when people move on to universal credit. It would be foolhardy of the Government to say that there will be no difficulties, and I do not think that they are. There are bound to be difficulties, and that is where such organisations have an important role.

Helen Goodman: Is my hon. Friend aware that only on Friday Ofcom published new statistics showing that 10% of the population simply have no access to broadband?

Anne Begg: I thought that the figure was 20%, but perhaps the hon. Lady has given a more recent figure than the one that was available when we wrote the report. There is no doubt that there will be challenges for people because of “digital by default”.

Dan Byles: I entirely take on board the point about the lack of digital access for certain people. That is a problem across a range of Government services, and not just in this area. Does she agree that moving away from multiple applications for a large swathe of different benefits will provide a benefit, for want of a better word? I am sure that, like me, she is visited by many constituents who simply do not know what benefits they are entitled to and are not claiming them. Universal benefit should help to prevent that.

Anne Begg: That is why most of our witnesses supported the basic principles of universal credit. I do not like to say that it will simplify the benefits system, because I do not think there is such a thing as a simple benefits system, but it will be more coherent, transparent and understandable.
	However, there is an inherent problem in the single payment. At the moment, if somebody makes a mistake in their housing benefit claim, only their housing benefit is affected, and if they make a mistake in their child tax credit claim, only that tax credit is affected. As universal credit will be a single benefit that is paid in a single monthly payment to each household, if one of those things goes wrong for one reason or another, it could mean that a family’s whole income is withheld. That is why it is a real challenge for the Government to get it right. It might mean that some individuals and households do not get their benefit at all. By the time that is picked up, it might be too late. The concern is over how quickly such people can be helped and how quickly they will be able to access the system. One of our key recommendations is about the speed of that identification.

George Hollingbery: I notice from the report that the Committee is keen to ensure that there is digital access via smartphones. I believe that the Government are looking at that idea very carefully and will implement it. I imagine that the hon. Lady will welcome the idea that people will be able to check their real-time universal credit status when they are out on the street or on the move, and will thus have a much better idea of what they can and cannot do when out shopping or transacting in any way.

Anne Begg: Ministers’ responses suggest that the smartphone technology may be some way off. There are issues with the security of the data. We have had some assurances from the Government on that. This is such a big reform that we could not, in our short inquiry, look in detail at all of these matters and their implications. That is the challenge for the Government.
	On the implementation timetable, the Government have made great play of saying that there will not be a big-bang effect, because universal credit will not come in for everybody on one day, but will have a slow roll-out. In the pathfinders that will operate from next April, it will be the easy claimants that are seen to first, such as single people who are on jobseeker’s allowance. However, people’s circumstances change, so it is imperative that the Government can foresee how universal credit will work in all circumstances for it to work even in the first cases. It will be no comfort to a claimant who receives no benefit in 2013 because there are failures in the system or because it cannot cope with their change of circumstances for the Government to say that the
	problems will be sorted out by 2017. For each family, there will effectively be a big bang when they make a new claim or when they move on to universal credit. We are hopeful that the Government are alert to those concerns.

Jane Ellison: While there is cautious hope that the IT systems will work, the report acknowledges that if they do work, particularly the real-time information element, it will alleviate many of the problems that we see in our surgeries, such as when people forget to report changes in their circumstances and end up with enormous arrears. That is a particular problem with tax credits. There is therefore the potential to solve one of the biggest problems that affects many of our constituencies.

Anne Begg: As the hon. Lady said, that is all dependent on the IT. A lot of what we are talking about is dependent on the IT. That brings me on to my next point.
	We were not persuaded by the assurances from HMRC that everything would be fine. We were concerned that there appeared to be no proper contingency planning for where the IT does not work as expected or at all. The points that we make in the report are based on the premise that it will work. Our concerns therefore come on top of any problems that might arise because of the IT.
	The report expresses concerns about the additional costs of disability. Ministers have told us that the total expenditure on disabled people as a whole will not be reduced under universal credit, but we are concerned about individual disabled people whose entitlement will be reduced. Existing claimants will obviously have transitional protection, so they will not lose out in cash terms immediately, but that protection will erode over time and will be lost if their circumstances change.

Kate Green: Was the Committee concerned that the protection for existing claimants, which means that they will not lose out unless there is a change in their circumstances, might act as a disincentive to enter into work, because they might worry that the job will not work out and that they will have to go on to universal credit for the first time, which could mean receiving a lower payment than they had previously?

Anne Begg: A number of witnesses pointed out to the Committee that there can sometimes be unintended consequences and that people’s behaviour does not always follow a logical pattern. What my hon. Friend has said might be logical in certain cases.
	Many decisions must still be made on passported benefits. The Committee acknowledges that it is a difficult issue, but it is essential for the Government to make a decision. A lot of working families depend on passported benefits, and that is one of the elements that will make work pay. I do not have time to consider in detail the localisation of council tax, although I have a feeling that Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions might share a few of the Labour party’s views on that, even if they do not say so publicly.
	The concerns set out in the report about the impact of universal credit on vulnerable claimants are significant and should give the Government cause to reflect on the speed at which they plan to proceed. This is an important reform for the Government, who have been willing to go where no other Government have feared to tread. Many have described it as a brave, radical step that should provide a more coherent and transparent benefit system for working-age people. It is therefore important that the Government get the implementation right, and ensure from the start that all 8 million households affected by the reform will be able to access the help they might need to make a claim. The success of universal credit will be judged not on how well it works for those able to manage it, but on how well it serves the most vulnerable in society.
	Question put and agreed  to .

Life-saving Skills in Schools

Nigel Evans: Before I call the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) I inform the House that we intend to finish this debate at about a quarter to 3. I am seeking to protect the next debate, so once the hon. Lady has moved the motion I will decide whether to apply a time limit, and if so, I shall inform the House what that limit will be.

Anne-Marie Morris: I beg to move,
	That this House believes every child should leave school knowing how to save a life.
	First, a big thank you is due to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and the Backbench Business Committee because without them this important issue would not have been given air time. This matter has concerned a number of Members for many years, and I pay tribute to those who have fought on this issue, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). It is something about which Members across the House feel strongly and passionately.
	What do I mean by emergency life-saving skills? For most of us that includes some of the basic things that can be done for an individual before professional trained help arrives. It usually includes putting people into the recovery position and enabling them to lie down and feel safe; helping people who are at risk of choking or have severe bleeding injuries; and, perhaps the most well known, CPR—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—when somebody’s heart has stopped and they are not breathing.
	Why has this issue been raised in connection with our schools and schoolchildren? Most of us are passionate that if anything in life is truly important, it is life itself and how to save it. That being the case, the more widely spread life-saving skills are, the better off we will be as a community and society. If we start with schoolchildren we build a pyramid, and slowly but surely we begin to inculcate those skills into society.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady is introducing this debate very well indeed. When I was at school I did full St John Ambulance training that involved three or four days on a course and was extensive. Training does not have to be like that, however; it can be quick, effective, short and clear instruction that could result in saving many lives. Children are often at home in the kitchen near their parents and would be able to save a life if they had clear instruction.

Anne-Marie Morris: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It takes two hours—that is all—to teach CPR. Indeed, if CPR is applied, a person is three times more likely to survive. It is well worth while. A third of all deaths in the UK result from cardiovascular disease and there are about 124,000 heart attacks each year. Heart attacks are perhaps the most common situation in which people need life-saving skills.

Karen Lumley: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that great work has been done by the charity SADS—Sudden
	Arhythmic Death Syndrome—UK? In my constituency, Robert and Maggie Underwood have already secured 14 defibrillators for our schools and campaigned tirelessly for that charity.

Anne-Marie Morris: My hon. Friend gives me added ammunition and I am delighted to hear what has happened in her community. That is absolutely first rate.
	Although we talk mainly about heart attacks, there are more cases of cardiac arrest generally but we are not necessarily as aware of them. A person can suffer an arrest if they lose an excessive amount of blood, suffer a lack of oxygen, become very hot or very cold, or have a blood clot on the lung. It could happen to anybody. It does not have to be someone who suffers from heart disease or is elderly; it could happen to any of us here.
	As was alluded to earlier, 60,000 cardiac arrests happen outside hospitals—two thirds in the home and one third in public. In the public arena there is often a witness, and in half those cases somebody who would be able to do something if they were properly trained. Irreversible brain damage to an individual who is not helped can take place in very few minutes. Every minute counts and there is a 10% reduction in someone’s chances of survival for every minute that passes. That must be put in context with the time the ambulance takes to arrive. The target at the moment is eight minutes, and 75% of ambulances make that. If we do our maths, however, it does not leave long to get professionals to the site.

Penny Mordaunt: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about heart attacks? Unbelievably, a four-year-old in my constituency who is a carer for her mother undertook training with the local ambulance crew. She was able to put her mother in the recovery position and managed to save her life. That was at four years old.

Anne-Marie Morris: That is a wonderful example of what can be done. There is often a sense that this issue applies only to older children, but younger children can also learn valuable skills.

Fiona Bruce: I commend my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that if we educate pupils, they in turn can educate their parents? A school in Cheshire teaches emergency life support, and I understand that a parent of one of its pupils was able to administer the appropriate action when confronted with someone choking in a restaurant.

Anne-Marie Morris: That is an excellent example and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution.
	If we look across the world, the UK does not find itself in a happy, comparable position in terms of the teaching of ELS and survival rates. Our survival rate following a cardiac arrest is pretty poor and quite variable—it depends on where someone is in the country. The survival rate for those who suffer an arrest is between 2% and 12% after they leave hospital. The British Heart Foundation estimates that 75% of people are untrained. That means that only 25% of the population have some training and the number of people in our community who are able help is very small.

Gareth Johnson: My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. Speaking to the British Heart Foundation today, I discovered that only 13% of children leave school with some sort of training in CPR. Although I have reservations about making such training compulsory in schools, does she agree that making CPR courses available to children and encouraging their use in schools is key?

Anne-Marie Morris: That courses are available and recommended is key, but I will come to compulsion later. My hon. Friend is right that the number of children who have access to training is relatively small, but all credit to the British Heart Foundation, which started its Heartstart programme in 1996. We now have courses in life-saving skills in 400 of our secondary schools. The problem is that it has taken 16 years to cover only 10% of secondary schools, so it will take an awfully long time to get to 100%.
	The position in Europe is much better. Eighty per cent. of residents of Scandinavia and Germany have first aid skills because they learned them in schools and elsewhere. The survival rate from a shockable cardiac arrest in Norway is 52%, whereas our survival rate is between 2% and 12%. Compulsory training is common in Europe—Norway, Denmark and France are good examples. Across the pond, 36 US states have legislation requiring the training. The cardiac arrest survival rate in Seattle is twice what the survival rate is in the UK, and 50% of the population is trained.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a lack of understanding in this country that young people suffer cardiac arrest? We need to do more, because it is not just an older persons’ illness.

Anne-Marie Morris: The hon. Gentleman makes an appropriate point. He is right. There is an additional benefit—on top of the volume of people who will end up trained—because cardiac arrest happens to young people as well.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Lady is extremely generous in giving way, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. She mentioned a number of countries and US states where training is compulsory. Compulsory training could give us much greater chances of survival. I hope she will tell us she is in favour of mandatory training.

Anne-Marie Morris: The right hon. Lady makes an appropriate and fair point. As they say in business, what gets measured gets done. We have training in this country, but it is not measured. There is no record of how much CPR is included. ELS is included in personal, social, health and economic education, but it is not consistent. We consequently do not get the results that other countries get.
	Why do we raise the issue of life-saving skills now? In part, because we have the evidence, some of which I have just shared with the House, but there is also clear public support. In response to the British Heart Foundation survey in February 2011, 86% of teachers said ELS should be included in the curriculum, and 78% of children said they wanted to be taught it. The evidence
	is that they enjoy it, and that it gives them a broader sense of self-worth and value within the community. Seventy per cent. of parents believe it should be taught. This will not be an uphill battle, because everybody wants it.
	There was a moment when ELS became front and foremost in everyone’s thinking—when Fabrice Muamba tragically collapsed on the football pitch in March. But for an individual with ELS skills coming on to the pitch, he may not have survived as well as he has. That led to the Love Heart campaign in The Sun—well done to T he Sun; that was a great campaign that attracted a lot of support. Ultimately, a petition of 130,000 signatures was delivered, asking for us to ensure that we have ELS training in schools. Support in the charitable and third sectors is huge. The British Heart Foundation, the British Medical Association, Cardiac Risk in the Young, St John Ambulance and the Red Cross support it—I could go on, but I am conscious that time is not on my side.
	As hon. Members have said, there are some great examples of the community providing training voluntarily. Dawlish community college in my constituency does one whole day on emergency life-saving skills for year 10s. A recent Ofsted report found the school to be good, and outstanding for leadership and management. Doesn’t that show?
	What is the way forward? The first option is that we could continue with the status quo, but as we have seen, results are patchy. ELS is included in PHSE, but it is not mandatory or delivered consistently. CPR is often not included. My view is that we will not achieve what we need to achieve as a society with the status quo.
	The second option is making ELS a mandatory piece of the PHSE curriculum. Under the current review, although PHSE will not be mandatory, the Minister has said that bits of it will be identified and made so. ELS could be included in the science or physical education curriculums. The Minister could also consider including it as a compulsory element in teacher training, so at least our teachers will have the training. She could also think about including it as a necessary part of the National Citizen Service programme.
	The second option has been debated on many occasions, and the objections to it have been very much the same each time. Let me briefly rehearse them and say why they no longer stand ground. The first argument is that the curriculum is too full and teachers need choice. I agree that the curriculum is too full and that we need to ensure that the core subjects are taught well, but I also agree with choice. It is appropriate to consider what is included in PHSE. When the matter was last debated, even my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who was then the answering Minister, could see the priority of ELS. He was lobbied to include knitting in PHSE, but agreed that knitting simply does not have the same value as ELS. It is perfectly possible both to include it and to retain flexibility in the curriculum. As I have said, it is only a two-hour course. On choice, we could say to schools, “It is compulsory, but you have the choice of including it in PHSE, science or PE, but it must be measured by Ofsted.” That would give flexibility.
	The second argument usually advanced against the proposal is cost and resource. The British Heart Foundation has estimated that it will cost £2,200 a year per school, but that is not a huge amount of money. The charitable
	sector, trainee doctors and general practitioners can get involved in teaching on a voluntary basis. They will do it for free, and the cascade principle says that if we teach the teachers, they will teach others and so on. I suspect that the number of people wanting to get involved and to help for free would make this a relatively inexpensive activity.
	We must set that against the cost to the public purse. If an increasing number of people have brain damage when they need not have it and are kept on life support machines in hospitals, or if there is an increasing number of people who survive but who must be supported at home, the bill goes up. A day in hospital costs £400 or £500. As hon. Members know, disability living allowance can be £131 a week. That adds up to a sizeable bill. It is not just about money—there is also a cost to the family and society. As a nation, we believe in prevention rather than cure. The question, therefore, is not whether we can afford to do this, but whether we can afford not to.

Andrew Bridgen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. I was contacted by a constituent whose brother-in-law had a huge heart attack at the age of 46 while at work. If a colleague of his had not had CPR skills to keep him alive until the ambulance arrived, he would have passed away. Does that not emphasise how important it is to give our young people those skills for the whole of their lives to help to save other people’s lives?

Anne-Marie Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and leads me to the third and final objection I suspect will be raised, which is the problem of physically damaging somebody’s health through CPR by, for example, breaking a rib. No one has ever been sued for helping somebody in those circumstances. When a person has a cardiac arrest, they are almost clinically dead—only the brain is still going. So someone helping a person who has had a cardiac arrest cannot do any more physical damage because the person is pretty much dead, and no one has been sued; indeed, I do not believe that people in this country would support such legal action. In exchange for training, these young people have a huge opportunity.
	In conclusion, the case has been made for emergency life-saving skills to be taught in schools consistently, to ensure it happens in all schools. It is the right thing to do for society and for the economy. It is not just a decision for the Secretary of State for Education. For all the reasons I have mentioned, the Minister should work with the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Cabinet Office. This is a broad issue. Not making it mandatory is the triumph of hope over experience.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. There is now a seven-minute limit on speeches.

Andrew Smith: I warmly welcome this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and other hon.
	Members on bringing this issue before the House, and commend all the newspaper and petitioning activity that led to that. It is not every motion before the House of which we can say it will save thousands of lives and cost very little, but that is precisely what this motion will do if the Government follow through on it, as the hon. Lady has been advocating. I wholeheartedly agree with everything she said about making it mandatory and with her demolition of all the arguments against it.
	In the brief time allowed, I want to refer to a programme that originated 15 years ago at the John Radcliffe hospital in my constituency, which has been extended to nine other centres in the UK and emulated overseas in Hong Kong and Belarus. The injury minimisation programme for schools was, like most of the best ideas, very simple and obvious once someone was clever enough to think of it. The idea is that if we educate children in accident prevention and what to do when there is an accident, and at an age when they are old enough to understand and apply the lessons but before they become especially sensitive about their bodies, that will cut accidents and save lives. The programme works by combining work in the classroom with a visit to hospital to learn emergency life skills. Approximately 5,000 10 and 11-year-olds in Oxfordshire take part each year. Children enjoy it, teachers value it, and, most importantly, it works.
	I congratulate all who work on the programme—its administrators and volunteers, as well as the medical staff and teachers. I have met children on the course, and it is uplifting to see their enthusiasm for the knowledge and practical skills that they have learned, and how proud they are to go home and tell their parents that they know how to save their life. I have one feedback message from a youngster who went on the programme:
	“I have shown my mum how to do the recovery position! She was very impressed! I told her about CPR and I now know that if someone has collapsed then I could save their life. Hope you enjoy my feedback. Please carry on teaching children to save people’s lives.”

Andrew Bridgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the practice were adopted and made mandatory, it could improve social cohesion? Young people could have the skills to save the lives of people from the older generation, and that would change perceptions in society.

Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is vital to understand what children are capable of, and that we do not underestimate the live-saving skills they can learn. There is hard evidence for that. In a scientific abstract to the international conference on emergency medicine in June, the journal Academic Emergency Medicine reported on a study assessing whether children can defibrillate. The study was done properly and rigorously, with control groups and so on, and chi-squared analysis of the conclusion. In concluded:
	“This study demonstrates that children aged 11-years-old can use a defibrillator effectively and safely, and retain this knowledge over several weeks”—
	and that active training, unsurprisingly, is the most effective way of teaching it to them.

Joan Ruddock: There is perhaps even more important feedback in the case histories that the St John Ambulance has circulated to all hon. Members, where children of that age have been shown to save lives, either of their peers or of their parents in some circumstances.

Andrew Smith: I wholeheartedly agree, and I have similar evidence from IMPS. What is more, and as the hon. Member for Newton Abbot argued, such initiatives are very cost-effective. The IMPS estimate is that it costs approximately £16 a head to enable children to take part. I would like to raise a couple of points about funding.
	In Oxfordshire, 50% of the cost of IMPS has been met by the PCT, there has been some support from the county council, and the rest of the cost has been met by fundraising initiatives. Of course, classroom time and teacher involvement is met from the base education budget, which is right because there are wider commensurate educational benefits relating to the self-esteem of children who take part. Funding for some of the other centres is under acute pressure. Sadly, the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster IMPS closed because of shortage of funds—absolutely tragic when one thinks of the benefits.
	There is also a general issue about future funding with the establishment of the NHS Commissioning Board. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether funding for this sort of initiative will be the responsibility of the Commissioning Board as the main successor to the PCT, whether it will fall to the county council with its public health responsibilities, or whether the responsibility will be shared. Whichever it is, it is essential that IMPS and similar initiatives are enabled to continue and thrive to form the basis of what we hope will be part of the mandatory curriculum provision for which we are arguing. At the end of the day, there can be nothing more important than helping children save lives, both their own and those of others.

Justin Tomlinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing the debate on a subject that I know she is passionate about. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), as we have been pushing on this collectively for some time. I feel that we are making some progress.
	The debate is essential, because we are talking about creating the next generation of life-savers. Let me use some cold, hard statistics to reinforce that point. Some 60,000 people a year will have a cardiac arrest. The survival rates in this country are disgracefully low—between 2% and 12%—which means that approximately 55,000 people a year will die from a cardiac arrest. About half of those are, in theory, able to get help through the ambulance service, but on average it takes approximately 6 to 12 minutes for an emergency ambulance to reach a critically ill patient. For every minute that passes, the chance of survival falls by 10%. However, if CPR is given immediately, survival rates increase threefold. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot said, we really cannot do any worse by leaving somebody in that position.
	The great shame is that most people are simply not able to help. For about half of the 60,000, there are witnesses on hand who could help, but most either do not have the skills or lack the confidence even to try something. By training and educating individuals, we can radically alter the situation. I have heard horrific stories of crowds gathering round, with no one willing
	to step in. Thankfully, the evidence clearly shows that, with training, lay people can overcome the psychological barriers and manage the patient until more advanced and experienced personnel arrive.
	Those are the cold, hard statistics, but I was in such a position with my own father. When I was 12, my father collapsed. My attempts to help were, at best, muddled, and passers-by then helped. We all rely on people having that confidence to go and make a difference. Sadly, my father was one of those statistics who did not survive. We will never know, had we all been equipped with the skills, what difference that would have made.
	What we are asking for would take only 0.2% of the school year. It takes less than two hours to train a young person fully in emergency life-saving skills. To put that into context, that is the equivalent of one PE lesson. I am conscious that schools Ministers are for ever lobbied by campaigns saying, “This would be very important for the national curriculum.” I am as guilty as any MP for asking for financial education, basic cookery skills and a variety of other campaigns. However, we are trying to be helpful; we would be happy if such training were included in PSHE, as long as it was a mandatory part of it. It could go into biology, as one understands how the breathing system and the heart works. It could go into PE lessons, especially given the number of sports therapists we would like to encourage. We are not proud—as long as we can get it in somewhere.
	We are told that there is a limit to the amount of time available in the national curriculum, yet we find time for every school to practise fire drills. They are important, but 60,000 people a year having a cardiac arrest is certainly up there with fire drills. We could take the training in assemblies. If we really are struggling with the school curriculum, then there are always driving lessons, because all young people want to take lessons—we are trying to be as helpful as we possibly can be.
	The training is straightforward. At a recent meeting of the all-party group on heart disease, I and all of my staff took part, and it was a breeze—it was pretty impressive for us for it to be a breeze. The training can be broken into three levels and even the most basic form of training can make a difference. For example, the body has enough oxygen in the blood so that even basic compression CPR is sufficient for 15 minutes. Crucially, these skills will remain with people for the rest of their lives. We will create a new generation of life-savers and they can pass their skills on, so it is a win-win situation. We have the evidence that it will work. It will allow us to change the prognosis of this devastating condition and save thousands of lives a year.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot made great play of international comparisons, talking about the improvements in France, Denmark, Norway and Seattle. The cold, hard statistics show that, where such training is compulsory, survival rates are not 2% to 12% but 52%. That means that an extra 15,000 lives a year would be saved.

Andrew Bingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that children would thoroughly enjoy learning emergency life-saving in school? Instead of sitting in the classroom reading books, they would be getting involved; it is hands-on. They would enjoy it, and learn quickly, too.

Justin Tomlinson: My hon. Friend has been a good supporter of our ongoing campaign, and his question leads me on to my next point.
	This idea has huge public support. According to a British Heart Foundation survey, 86% of teachers think that ELS should be part of the national curriculum—we have the opportunity to get teachers’ support—and 78% of children want to be taught how to save someone’s life in an emergency, which touches on my hon. Friend’s point. Furthermore, 70% of parents thought that children should be taught ELS at school.
	Following Fabrice Muamba’s cardiac arrest and with the help of a campaign by The Sun, which we all supported, more than 100,000 people signed the e-petition—it is one of the few that quickly racked up the 100,000 signatures. I was delighted to read today that, although Fabrice Muamba thought his football career was over, he has said he will review that decision in two years, if his heart rate settles. That would be a fantastic achievement. He was technically dead for more than 70 minutes, but, because of ELS, he survived, and he has gone on to get married. That is a testament to the difference it can make.
	In conclusion, ELS would make a real difference to survival rates. Training takes less than two hours, and the skills remain for life. Through education empowerment, a new generation of life-savers will be created, saving thousands of lives a year. I hope that we can make this a compulsory element of children’s education and create an army of life-savers with the confidence and skills to save a life.

Valerie Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris)—I hope her foot gets better—and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who had a ten-minute rule Bill on this issue in the previous Session, which sadly fell. I congratulate other Members, too, who have taken this message forward.
	I am a signatory to early-day motion 550, which calls for compulsory ELS in schools. I have also undertaken a three-day course with St John Ambulance—so I know, I hope, how to save a life—and I am a member of the Health Committee. Making ELS compulsory in schools would send the message to children: “Don’t walk on the other side. You can help someone. When you see someone, you can help them.” That is an incredibly empowering message. The simple task of knowing the recovery position, or even knowing when not to move a person—for example, if they have hurt their neck—are important skills. We are saying to them, “Don’t be afraid. You can be concerned, but don’t be afraid when someone is having a heart attack or is distressed.”
	There are many children with conditions such as epilepsy or even diabetes—they will have to inject themselves—and children with siblings or parents with such conditions. They will understand these conditions and be able to help. This idea is just an extension of that. The 2001 census found that 174,995 under-18s are carers. So many children already know how to look after adults. There are four simple measures: dialling 999; administering CPR; putting someone in the recovery position; or simply staying with them, holding their hand and talking to them. That can save lives, and those measures are the basis of ELS. It should be compulsory for them to be taught in schools

Iain McKenzie: It will come as no surprise that Scotland has had voluntary engagement with pupils in schools for some time. In Inverclyde, we offered it to children in their lunch break, and we were astounded by how many came forward to learn these skills.

Valerie Vaz: I agree with my hon. Friend. As we have heard, different parts of different countries are doing this on a voluntary basis, but we are calling for something more: for it to be compulsory as part of education.
	I had the privilege of administering CPR during the last conference recess. Most Members—certainly of my generation—will know the tune of “Stayin’ Alive” by the Bee Gees. That is the kind of rhythm one should use to administer CPR. [Interruption.] I will not sing it, although I can hum it. I want to bring that up to date. I do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you have seen this hit song on YouTube, but “Gangnam Style” has a similar beat, and in fact the first movement of the dance is similar to that required for administering CPR—as long as the person uncrosses their hands. Imagine teaching that in schools. How wonderful it would be to engage children in that way.
	The British Medical Association has said that almost 60,000 people suffer from out-of-hospital strokes, and evidence shows that CPR can triple the rate of survival. I urge the Government to take that onboard, to listen to Back Benchers—for a change—and to include training on it as part of the curriculum. It is compulsory in Norway, Denmark and France. Let us embed it in our children’s psyche, engrain it and make it part of their DNA. After all, it is a matter of life and death.

Julian Lewis: In making a brief contribution, I shall carry on where the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) left off—with how a piece of music can save a life. She is so right. In a slightly different context, I remember listening to a radio interview with the wife of the great violinist, Yehudi Menuhin. She said she was always terribly worried when her husband played Beethoven’s violin concerto, and when it got to a certain bit—when she knew the end was nigh—she used to sing to herself, “Thank God it’s over, thank God it’s over”. That has ruined Beethoven’s violin concerto for me ever since, because I have never been able to get it out of my mind.
	Reading the briefing, I did indeed see that, “Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin’ alive” is apparently the rhythm that should be followed when administering CPR. I read that in the context of a report from the Daily Mail on 10 January, helpfully included by the Library in the debate pack. In it Dr Rob Galloway told the story of the rector of St Nicholas church in Sevenoaks, Angus MacLeay, who collapsed at the age of 51 and died—but his son and his friend had been told how to administer CPR. The report read:
	“Although they had only a few hours’ training, it’s all they needed to know instinctively what to do. They took it in turns, pushing down on the chest in a continuous cycle”
	that the experts say should, indeed, follow the rhythm of that famous Bee Gees song. Two weeks later he was back at home, having died and been saved by his son.

Julie Hilling: It also works if the person sings “Nellie the Elephant”—for those of us who are more musically challenged or who cannot remember “Stayin’ Alive”—although it has to be a fast version.

Julian Lewis: I look forward to the hon. Lady’s rendition when she speaks—very shortly, I hope—and I pay tribute to her, to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and to other hon. Members. I was particularly touched by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), when he said what happened to him and his late father.
	My own background in this subject is slight. I have been involved with organisations such as Cardiac Risk in the Young, which campaigns to have young people screened for heart defects that otherwise no one would know were present, and with the battle to save the children’s heart hospital at Southampton general hospital, which is one of the best in the country and fortunately will not now be reorganised out of existence.
	My immediate incentive for coming to today’s debate was a letter I received from my constituent Natasha Jones, who lives in Brockenhurst, who has set up an organisation called Baby Resuscitation. During the summer of 2010, she experienced an episode with her 11-week-old daughter of what is known as near-miss cot death, when her baby stopped breathing and was drifting in and out of consciousness. At the time, my constituent had no resuscitation training. It was only her maternal instincts that succeeded in keeping her baby alive until professional arrived. As in the case of so many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, the experience motivated my constituent, spurring her on to do something to ensure that the availability of skill would not be hit and miss in future. That is why she set up the Baby Resuscitation scheme, which is over-subscribed and to which parents go to get the skills they need. The point she makes to me is how much more vitally helpful and productive it would be if children had to learn such skills at school.
	I know many people want to speak. This seems to me such an obviously admirable cause that I do not need to say anything more, other than that I wholeheartedly support it and I look to Minister to give the campaign the encouragement and endorsement that it clearly deserves.

Julie Hilling: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to my colleagues in the campaign, the hon. Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), which is dear to our hearts.
	This is a
	“no brainer, it’s just common sense”.
	Those are not my words, but the words of Dr Andy Lockey from the Resuscitation Council. He and another 124,665 people are calling on the Government to put emergency life support skills in the curriculum for all schools. For just two hours every year, we could make every child a life saver—just two hours that may save some of the 150,000 people who die each year in situations where first aid could have made a difference; two hours that could save some of the 60,000 people who have a cardiac arrest outside the hospital environment.
	On 17 March this year, Fabrice Muamba was playing for Bolton Wanderers against Tottenham when he suffered a cardiac arrest. Fabrice was really lucky, because he had his cardiac arrest in a public place where there were trained first aiders; because the paramedics at the match were knowledgeable enough to give him immediate CPR on the pitch, so that his brain was saved; and because medics did not give up, but worked on him for 78 minutes until his heart restarted. Just because he was with people who knew what to do he survived, although sadly he has had to give up football—I was interested to hear the hon. Member for North Swindon say that it might not be for life. Fabrice joined us to take the British Heart Foundation’s petition, signed by 124,665 people, to Downing street.
	My sister’s friend Malcolm McCormick was also really lucky. In April this year, he went to school to pick up his grandchildren when he keeled over—effectively dead, not breathing, heart not beating. Malcolm was really lucky because one of the people waiting to collect their children was a retained firefighter, who started to give CPR. He was also really lucky because once a month another firefighter volunteers in the school tuck shop and it was his Friday to be working, so he came out and took control of the situation. Malcolm was also lucky because a defibrillator was available and he was rushed to a specialist hospital. Malcolm left hospital three days later with very sore ribs, albeit alive and with his brain intact. Four months later was fit enough to be a games maker at the Paralympic games.
	However, it should not be down to luck, because there are far too many other examples of people suffering a cardiac arrest not being saved because the people around them do not know what to do. They include children such as Ciaran Geddes, who died aged seven, 12-year-old Oliver King, 16-year-old Daniel Young and 17-year-old Guy Evans. Their mums are campaigning for defibrillators and for emergency life-saving skills to be taught in schools. The Government have a chance to make a difference—to save lives simply, cheaply and immediately. They have said that they want a national curriculum to reflect the
	“essential knowledge and understanding that pupils should be expected to have to enable them to take their place as educated members of society.”
	Surely knowing how to save a life would be absolutely in keeping with that aspiration.
	I cannot imagine anything worse than watching a loved one die and not knowing what to do—especially if we find out later that doing something may have saved their life—so I have become a Heartstart trainer. I can teach people to do CPR and deal with choking and bleeding, and my staff are Heartstart trained. All the secondary schools in Bolton West have become or are becoming Heartstart schools, and they are rolling the programme out to the primary schools. There is co-ordinated action across Bolton to train as many children and adults in emergency life support skills as possible. The North West ambulance service, the fire brigade, Bolton Wanderers, Bolton council and the British Heart Foundation are all working together to teach the skills and promote defibrillators. In the new year, The Bolton News will run a campaign to get schools to sign up for Heartstart and raise funds for defibrillators in schools and public places.
	Fabrice Muamba’s collapse raised awareness locally about the dangers of sudden cardiac arrest. The response in Bolton has been fantastic, but it cannot go far enough
	until every child leaves school a life saver. I met two 13-year-olds in Horwich on Saturday who had just learnt life support skills as part of their PE lessons in Rivington and Blackrod high school. Demi told me it made her feel good about herself because she can save a life. Matthew told me that he feels confident because if anything happened to someone, he would know what to do. Mark Roach, the Heartstart co-ordinator at Ladybridge high school, told me that his pupils leave school with a real life skill that they can pass on to others, and they do the lessons during form time. There are many places where Heartstart would fit into the curriculum. My local lead teacher for PE believes it would fit perfectly into the PE curriculum. Other schools do it as part of personal, social, health and economic education or biology, but where it fits is less important. Emergency life support skills should be part of the core curriculum, taught in all schools.
	The Government like to compare themselves internationally. As has been said, in France, Denmark and Norway, ELS is already a compulsory part of the curriculum, as it is in a number of states in Australia and 36 of the 50 states in America. In Seattle, because no one can graduate from school or gain their driving licence without leaning first aid skills, more than half the population is trained in emergency life support. In the UK, there is only a 30% chance of a bystander administered CPR; in Seattle it is 60%. People have double the chance of surviving a cardiac arrest in Seattle than they do in the UK. Since the British Heart Foundation has run its “Hands-only CPR” advert with Vinnie Jones—to “Stayin’ Alive”—another 28 people have been saved because bystanders “had a go”, but it is not enough. As Dr Lockey says,
	“Every year we don’t teach Emergency Life Support Skills to all school children, people are dying unnecessarily”.
	The Government should act now and make emergency life support skills part of the core curriculum in schools. They can save lives now.

Alison Seabeck: I cannot tell you how important I think this debate is, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing it. I also congratulate the hon. Members who have spoken—with a great deal of knowledge and personal experience—about how important this issue is. The hon. Lady made an excellent speech, touching on all the key issues, and asked most of the key questions.
	I will speak from personal experience. I qualified as a lifeguard in the mid-1990s. I did it to support my daughters, who were in a swimming club that needed voluntary lifeguards. I trained every two years and did the exam. During that process my children trained with me—we used to practise the various required skills on the front room floor. I was fortunate that there were no major incidents in the pool during the almost 10 years in which I turned up five nights a week to lifeguard—as parents do from time to time. However, on dry land it was altogether different. Let me cite some examples.
	I remember stepping off a London bus one day to see a woman lying on the pavement, literally in front of me, and five people standing around, before doing the basic checks and asking people, “Has anybody done anything? Has anybody moved her?” Everybody stood there, shook their heads and said no, either because they were too
	scared or because they did not know what to do. The lady was unconscious, and was still unconscious when the ambulance arrived. Again, it was people’s lack of knowledge that prevented them from doing even the basic checks—that her pulse was there and she was breathing.
	On another occasion I was on a train, travelling into London, sitting opposite a very large gentleman who was clearly in difficulty. My assessment was that he was having a cardiac episode of some kind. We cleared the area around him. I asked whether there were any doctors or nurses on the train; there were not. People were coming up to me as I was in the middle of it all, asking, “Shouldn’t you ring his wife?” I got someone to stay with the man and keep him calm, went down the carriage with the woman and said, “Well, what do we tell her—that her husband is having an episode on a train in the middle of nowhere and we don’t know which hospital he is going to?” “Oh,” she said. Common sense, I am afraid, rather goes out of the window when these things happen. He was a very large gentleman and I was worried that if he actually went on me, he would not fit in the gap between the seats so that I could do CPR. So I was struggling about how I was going to do it, but fortunately we got to a station and the ambulance got there and took him away for expert treatment. Again, at the end of that, people came up and said, “Thank God you were there. We didn’t know what to do. We were scared”—exactly the same comments.
	The final example was in Brighton, at the Grand hotel, when I was having a dinner during conference. One of the guests started choking, slumped and started to go blue. So it was a Heimlich manoeuvre. I have to say it was my boss, so it was probably just as well I did it, not least because he is alive and I have now just married him; but that is another story.

Valerie Vaz: Too much information.

Alison Seabeck: Yes. But again, the comments came back, “Thank heavens. We didn’t know what to do.” The basic skills are so simple and so easy to teach, and once you have them you almost automatically go into support mode, as I did in the hotel in Brighton. I admit that afterwards I was shaking a bit, but none the less you just do it, because that is what you have been trained to do.
	Children are like sponges. They soak up information, and if they can see a practical use for it, they will learn even more quickly. This week, I am going to talk to pupils at Manadon Vale primary school about this very issue, as part of the discussion. Knowing basic techniques, such as being able to administer support when someone is having a cardiac arrest, is absolutely vital. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) said, being in a situation where a loved one is having a cardiac arrest or perhaps where the baby is choking and not knowing what to do is unimaginable. I really cannot imagine how someone must feel in those circumstances. Teaching the basics is so important.
	Of course there are people who say, “I don’t want to do the mouth-to-mouth bit.” They could do hands-only, as a number of Members have said. I still walk around carrying a British Red Cross Resusci-Shield for mouth-to-mouth, because I do think it is important to have one, but it is possible to do it hands-only, and one certainly should try.
	The hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about the lesson in which these skills should be taught being flexible. I think that is a really good proposal. I do think we need to move towards ensuring these skills are taught as a matter of course in our schools. I think pregnant mothers should have a basic training as well, because there are lives to be saved there. The idea that such training is too onerous is a perennial excuse. I really ask the Minister not to hide behind that, because it is absolutely doable.
	Importantly, I would ask the Minister to go away and talk with colleagues in other Departments—in Health and in Communities and Local Government—because there are benefits across other Departments and there are possibly even some cost savings, ultimately, which the Government are obviously very interested in. Most important of all, lives will be saved. Children and young people are very capable of using these skills, and that is the time to teach them.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall speak very briefly; I am a late interloper into the debate, but I wanted to raise two points. Actually, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) has touched on them already. I recently attended a demonstration of CPR. The instructor was at pains to say that mouth-to-mouth was not essential but CPR was, and that some people are put off volunteering for such courses because they are fearful of engaging in mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. That is what my hon. Friend said, so she emphasised, “Do not press the mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.”
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on launching this superb debate, and all those who spoke so excellently. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View deserves a medal because she has saved several lives.
	I want to speak specifically about water life-saving, because 55 years ago I acquired an intermediate life-saver’s certificate. I have never had to use it, but I think even now I could do the basics and get someone out of the water without drowning myself, and get them breathing again—free their tongue, and all the things that I remembered when I was 14 or 15. That is a subset of life-saving, but it is very important and I hope that the Government bear in mind the encouragement for people to take up life-saving in water as well as dealing with cardiac arrests.
	Those were the two points that I wanted to raise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I promised to speak for two minutes, and I hope it is not too long.

Kevin Brennan: We have had a very good debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), whose name appears at the head of the motion, on her very fine speech, which drew a lot of agreement across the House. She was absolutely right to emphasise that without compulsion, we simply will not get the levels of performance that we want to see and the number of lives saved that we want, in comparison with other countries. I shall return to that point later.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) rightly said that we must not underestimate what children are capable of. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) rightly said that we need to get on and train the next generation of live-savers, and he mentioned, as other Members did, the survival rate of 2% to 12% of cardiac arrests in this country compared with 52% in the better jurisdictions. He also, movingly, told us about his own personal experience involving his father, which brought a lot of sympathy from across the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) did her speech gangnam-style, which I thought very appropriate. On MP4’s album, track 2, “Love’s Fire,” is also about the same rhythm, although it is not as well known as the other examples given. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) also spoke with personal experience. I can assure him that no one was saying, “Thank God it’s over,” at the end of his speech, which was a very effective contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who herself is common sense on legs, told us that it is simply common sense for us to be teaching these skills and making that teaching compulsory. She gave us real examples of where young lives had been saved. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who brought her personal experience as a trained lifeguard and saved her future husband as a result of that training. Only time will tell whether she lives to regret that but, all joking aside, she showed the importance of these skills. Briefly, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) drew on his personal experience.
	We support the inclusion of live-saving skills as a compulsory element in our schools. We are open-minded, as hon. Members said, as to how we achieve that—PSHE might be the best subject in which to include that on a statutory basis. The motion does not actually spell that out, but it says that everyone should learn these skills. My question on these occasions always is, “If that is what the House wants to happen, what is the transmissions mechanism to ensure that it does happen?” The Government frequently talk about the necessity of following the examples of high-performing jurisdictions when we are looking at what schools do well and at the outcomes. So how about the Government, on this occasion, following their own advice and looking at what happens in high-performing jurisdictions around the world as far as life-saving skills are concerned? I am afraid the evidence is clear that unless the Government spell out that such training should be compulsory and must be taught in schools, it simply will not work and we will continue to have the very slow progress that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot talked about in her speech, in terms of saving lives.
	That would not be acceptable, because we are talking about people’s lives. What is the barrier anyway? All the arguments against the proposal have been demolished in the debate, so the only objection can be an ideological one relating to telling schools what to do. That is not a good enough reason when we are talking about saving lives. Unless this is made a requirement in all our schools, it will happen only in some of them. We can already see that on the ground.
	Earlier this afternoon, just before I dashed over here for the debate, I was talking to children from Lansdowne primary school in my constituency. I took the opportunity
	to talk to them about life-saving skills, and some of them had been taught those skills, but only as part of their first aid club activities. So some had been taught them, but not all. When I asked whether they thought that everyone should learn them, they were unanimous in agreeing that they should. Children and young people are up for this, and as has been observed, they are like sponges and can learn these skills quite quickly. The training need not take up a huge, burdensome amount of time in the curriculum. There is therefore no reason for the Government not to listen to what has been said by Members on both sides of the House today and come forward with proposals to ensure that this training happens in all our schools.
	As the Government’s changes to the school system continue, this proposal will become more difficult to implement. It is already the case that nearly half of all secondary schools do not have to follow the national curriculum, following the academisation programme. We have heard today about the £1 billion overspend on that programme, which will take money away from other areas of the Department for Education’s budget. We have no evidence yet to show whether their academisation programme is working. It is fine to change the name and governance of a group of schools, but we need to see evidence that that is working. There is, however, evidence of the negative impact of those cuts being felt elsewhere. If academies are not required to follow the national curriculum and cannot be directed to introduce these programmes, it is likely that the life-saving skills situation will get worse. The Minister needs to get a grip on this.

Elizabeth Truss: Is it not the case that the previous Government introduced the idea that academies would not teach the national curriculum?

Kevin Brennan: Indeed it was, but that was a small, targeted programme aimed at a small number of schools in deprived areas. The hon. Lady’s policy is completely different, in that it aims to roll out academy status. I think that about 47% of secondary schools in England now have that status. So her policy is on a completely different scale from ours, and she must adjust her policy according to those facts.
	The Minister will no doubt say that she hopes the proposals will be introduced as a result of the motion being passed today, but unless she can tell us, perhaps in her forthcoming announcements, that they will be made a statutory part of PHSE or that she has some other way of achieving this, it simply will not happen. I can predict here and now that, if she does not take action, we will be back here debating this issue in a couple of years. Unless she makes this training a compulsory part of the curriculum, the statistics will not get much better.
	We support the motion, for all the reasons that have been outlined in the debate, and the Minister should tell the House whether she agrees with what has been said. I know that she won the “Minister to Watch” award yesterday at The Spectator magazine’s Parliamentarian of the Year awards. During her acceptance speech, she thanked the Secretary of State for Education for “not fettering or gagging” her. Well, here is an opportunity for her to show that she is not being fettered or gagged by the Secretary of State, that she is her own woman,
	that she is in charge of her brief and that she is going to get on and make this training compulsory, as everyone here has called for today.

Elizabeth Truss: We have had an interesting debate, and I know that many people feel very strongly about the provision of emergency life support skills in schools. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and her colleagues, who have come together to put the subject on the agenda today. I have learned a great deal today about ELS, about staying alive and about the singing skills of some Members. The next time I tune in to “Saturday Night Fever”, I shall no doubt think about resuscitation.
	We have heard some affecting stories about the impact of ELS and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation training on Members and their families. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to hear them, and to have the subject brought to life. I agree that the ability to save a life is one of the most important skills a young person can learn. I also recognise the excellent work being done by organisations such as the Red Cross, with its “Life. Live it” campaign and resources, and St John Ambulance with its classroom-focused “Teach the Difference” resources and schools first aid competition. In addition, the British Heart Foundation’s Heartstart campaign has already trained 2.6 million people, including many young people in our schools. I met representatives of that organisation earlier this week.

Andrew Smith: While the Minister is talking about those initiatives, will she respond to the question I posed in my speech about whether the funding that currently comes from primary care trusts for initiatives such as the injury minimisation programme for schools—IMPS—in my constituency will in future be the responsibility of the commissioning groups or of the county council? If she does not know, will she undertake to write to me with the answer?

Elizabeth Truss: I was just about to mention the right hon. Gentleman and IMPS. I will certainly take up the matter with the Department of Health in order to understand that specific point.
	Schools are free to take up all the programmes I have just mentioned and to make use of those reputable organisations in order to bring the subject to life and teach it in a high-quality way in schools. I am keen to see a higher take-up of the subject; I think it is a good thing. I want to see it done in such a way that quality will be on offer. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) asked how we could achieve what we want in Britain’s schools. Should it be done through compulsion or through winning hearts and minds? I favour the approach of winning hearts and minds and of improving practice in schools, rather than ordering something to be done compulsorily and not necessarily getting the quality we need.
	When the national curriculum was first devised in the 1980s, it was seen as a slim guide to core knowledge, with schools having the freedom to teach in the way they saw fit. However, even its first draft was far larger than its originators intended. A lot of that came about through people wanting particular subjects to be included,
	often for laudable reasons. I am now working on the drafts for the new national curriculum at primary and secondary level, and it is our intention that it should be slimmed to reflect a framework for essential knowledge. It has been rather content-heavy in the past, which has restricted what schools teach and how they are able to teach it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has given me many helpful suggestions over the past few weeks. Even though I have not been in the job long, I have had quite a few meetings with him at which he has suggested various topics that he considers to be part of that core knowledge, all of which we are considering. It is our aim, however, to reduce unnecessary prescription throughout the education system.

Joan Ruddock: I put it to the Minister that the teaching of life-saving skills is quite different from the range of other activities about which she has had representations. We are talking about learning a skill for life that could be taught in as little as two hours and that could save lives. There is nothing to compare to that, which is why it should be mandatory.

Elizabeth Truss: As I have said, I completely agree with those sentiments. This is an important area for students to study, but there are different and better ways of achieving that.

Julie Hilling: Will the Minister give way?

Elizabeth Truss: I am sorry; I have taken quite a few interventions, and Mr Deputy Speaker is keen to get on to the next debate.
	As I have said, I believe that it is best to win hearts and minds. We can then ensure that the teaching of life-saving skills in our curriculum is first class. Compulsion could result in the subject being taught in a tick-box fashion.
	Schools can choose to cover ELS skills as part of non-statutory personal, social, health and economic education, which we have already talked about. At primary level, PSHE provides for pupils to be taught about basic emergency procedures and where to get help, and at secondary schools they can develop the skills to cope with emergency situations that require basic first aid procedures, including, at key stage 4, resuscitation techniques.
	In this afternoon’s debate, I was struck by the fact that 86% of teachers are in favour of teaching life-saving skills at school, but that the take-up is much lower. From all the discussions I have had with the professionals in the organisations that design life-saving courses and offer them in schools, I have found that the reason teachers often give for not being able to take up these good programmes is that they do not have enough discretion within their teaching time and their curriculum
	time to be able to teach those subjects. Our whole aim of giving teachers more discretion and more time will surely mean much stronger take-up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) pointed out, 86% of teachers want this subject to be taught. That is already a long way towards 100%; there is only another 14% to persuade.

Andrew Bridgen: From my own experience in education and that of my children, I know that schools have spent many hours a week teaching children to learn to swim, giving them the tools to save their own lives if they fall into water. Why can they not be given two hours a year to help save the lives of others?

Elizabeth Truss: I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments, but my point is that teachers want to do this and that we are giving them space in the curriculum to allow them to do so. I think that will result in a very positive outcome, but I also think it is better to win hearts and minds and allow freedom of judgment.

Julie Hilling: rose —

Elizabeth Truss: I need to reach the end of my comments to provide an opportunity for my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot to reply to the debate.
	Today’s debate has been very helpful, and I agree completely with the sentiments expressed by hon. Members, but I think the best way of achieving the goal we want is to give teachers the freedom and the discretion to allow them to follow their natural instincts. We have already seen that 86% of teachers want to achieve this, so let us allow them to get on with it.

Anne-Marie Morris: I will be brief. We have had an excellent debate. Given the restricted time available, I shall not name them all, but hon. Members’ contributions have been first class across the board. I have learned a lot; some wonderful personal insights have been shared.
	The message I take from the all the contributions, however, is that the mood of the House—despite what the Minister has said—is that this issue needs to be made compulsory. What gets measured gets done. If we think that we can achieve this without some element of compulsion, I am afraid that is little more than hope. It is not borne out by 10 years’ experience of trying, trying and trying again.
	I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The Minister has the message, and I hope she will take it away and discuss what can be done across the ministerial portfolio.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Resolved ,
	That this House believes every child should leave school knowing how to save a life.

Industrial Policy and Manufacturing

Jonathan Reynolds: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of industrial policy and UK manufacturing industries.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for today’s debate.
	A debate on industrial policy, particularly with regard to manufacturing, is overdue. It is also extremely timely, given the recent publication of Lord Heseltine’s review, “No stone unturned in pursuit of growth” and a number of recent developments, including Ford’s announcement of the closure of its plants in Southampton and Dagenham, and what we saw earlier in the year with the Coryton oil refinery. It is also an opportunity to highlight some of the excellent work being undertaken by the all-party associate manufacturing group, of which I am an officer, along with the hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and several others. I know they will all make contributions today.
	I believe that the UK has an incredibly important manufacturing sector—one that has huge potential, but one that needs a successful industrial strategy that would contain a number of elements and could carry widespread support across this House. One factor common to countries that have successful industrial polices is that the fundamentals of the strategies are widely shared. Businesses can invest for the long term, knowing that the rug will not be pulled from under them. Lord Heseltine makes that point on page 8 of his report, when he asks for the “maximum political consensus possible”. I would like the work of the all-party group, as well debates such as this, to become the basis of precisely that.
	Let me say at the outset what a debate about industrial policy is not. It is not misty-eyed romanticism for a return to the 1970s. This is forward looking, not backward looking. I believe there is a case for a modern industrial strategy that allows for our manufacturing sector to be a driver of prosperity for many years ahead. When people from across the political spectrum, such as Lord Mandelson and Lord Heseltine, seem to be coming to a consensus behind this, too, there definitely appears to be some momentum building for it.
	One part of Lord Heseltine’s report jumped out at me—not the lovely picture of Manchester town hall on the back cover, welcome though that is in any Government report, but paragraph 10 on page 5, where Lord Heseltine says:
	“Whether we look at the well established mature economies such as the United States or the new thrusters of the BRICs, there is one clear message we overlook at our peril: the public and private sectors are interdependent. Only by working together and learning to understand each others’ strengths and capabilities will we succeed.”
	I firmly agree, and I want to mention a number of areas where our industrial strategy should reflect that—in skills, investment, procurement and the image of manufacturing as well employer-employee relations.
	The battle to attract and retain a skilled work force is a constant issue for industry. All major economies face it, and there is no magic bullet. However, the age profile
	of our skilled work force in the UK, which creeps ever upwards, should be of huge concern to us all. Every company I visit tells me that the skills pipeline does not work as it should. I believe we should be looking at two things here. First, we should be looking at ways to devolve skills funding more directly to business itself, and in exchange business should guarantee that they will provide the high-quality apprenticeships we all want to see.

Gordon Birtwistle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the biggest problems is the careers advice offered to young people in schools from the age of 12 onwards? The careers advice is normally given by teachers who have only ever been teachers and have no concept of industry outside school. Would it not better if we had dedicated and qualified careers advisers in every secondary school in the country?

Jonathan Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman makes some good points. Careers advice is variable. As I understand it, we are moving away from face-to-face interactions and more towards website-based and telephone-based careers advice services. Whether that will have the effect we would want is probably a matter of concern to us all.
	We need to make apprenticeships work for the long term. I know Government Members are always well armed with statistics on new apprenticeships, but I would say to the Minister that there is a quantity versus quality debate to be addressed here, and an issue to do with how many apprenticeships are effectively developing the skills of our next generation. This is an area where more needs to happen.
	When I visit manufacturing businesses in my constituency, I am always struck by just how many skilled people started off at British Aerospace. Whether we meant it or not, it seems to me that in the past British Aerospace acted to all intents and purposes as an active industrial intervention, but with that role diminishing we do not have anything that really fills the gap.
	As for investment, I am sure that nearly every Member in the Chamber could report the same conversation with local businesses about the banks’ lack of interest in what they do. Businesses say that funding halved overnight during the financial crisis, but also that it was never that good beforehand. It seems that, as banks nationalised their business operations and their heads were turned by sectors of the economy that may have been more lucrative in the short term, they were no longer interested in the steady success of their manufacturing clients.
	We must find a way of securing for our manufacturing businesses the investment that they need. It seems to me that there is a growing consensus on the need for a British investment bank, whether it is modelled on Germany’s KfW or on France’s Financial Stability Institute, and I am attracted by the idea of a regional or sectoral structure. The proposed green investment bank could form part of a wider strategic investment bank, with a remit to generate long-term returns based on investment in infrastructure and businesses across strategic sectors.
	When it comes to procurement, I could simply use the word Bombardier, but there is plainly a view throughout industry that the United Kingdom’s current attitude to procurement represents a wasted opportunity for British business. Let me make it clear that I do not endorse protectionism. Some of the local firms in my constituency
	have been extremely successful in the export markets, particularly the aerospace businesses, and I think that talk of protectionism at home fails to recognise their achievements. A company delivering a contract here in the UK does not have to be British, but it should be possible to consider how we might be able to make procurement policy work for the UK economy in an intelligent way while still honouring our commitments to the single European market.
	I was recently made aware of the problems of Manganese Bronze in Coventry, which could lead to the disappearance of iconic British cabs from the streets of London. The Mayor’s clean air strategy means that as many as 2,000 cabs may have to be replaced in December this year. With Manganese Bronze in administration, the market is now wide open for Mercedes vehicles manufactured in Germany. Surely there could have been a better way.
	Another problem is the image of manufacturing. Modern manufacturing is clean and safe, but that does not seem to be widely understood. In fact, at a recent event held by the all-party group in Rochdale, some businesses reported struggling to convey the message that it was also well paid. I did not consider the problem to be particularly significant until I listened to the evidence that industry leaders gave to the group. If we are to try to increase the share of the economy that manufacturing represents, we will need to tackle that. I am not thinking of short-term rebranding or anything that smacks of a gimmick; I am thinking of a long-term campaign—similar to that requested by the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle)—to get the message across to schools and make them understand what modern British industry is really like.
	Finally, I want to say something about with employer-employee relations and employment law in the UK. I have deliberately left that subject until the end of my speech, because I suspect that it is the one on which there will be the least consensus. Let me explain my view by giving an example from my constituency.
	Kerry Foods, in Hyde, is the largest private sector employer in Tameside. It makes, among other things, Richmond and Walls sausages. Food manufacturing, incidentally, is a much undervalued part of British industry. A few years ago, Kerry needed to adopt the principles of lean manufacturing. It needed to be able to scale its production up and down much more quickly in order to remain competitive, and it therefore needed to consider moving from a five-days-a-week to a seven-days-a-week working pattern. That had big implications for the work force, who were strongly unionised, so Kerry decided to work with them and with Unite, the recognised trade union, to deliver it. In effect, Kerry told the union what it needed, and the union asked the work force to design a shift system that worked for them.
	The staff knew that the company’s bottom line was staying profitable, and the company knew that there had to be something in it for the staff. They agreed on the new shift system and a 3.5% wage rise for two successive years, dropping to 2.5% in the third year. That is more than most of our constituents are getting at the moment. My constituents who work for the company have told me that they felt that the consultation process had been extremely sincere, inclusive and open to recommendations, and that input from the union had
	made it into the final proposals. Unite also sent its reps at Kerry Foods to “change at work” courses which would help them to understand the company’s objectives and deliver the agreement of the work force to the new system. I should add that the company pays for a full-time convenor at the site through facility time, in line with a great deal of best practice.
	I gave that example in order to demonstrate that trade unions are not in themselves anti-competitive, and do not constitute a blockage to our economic prosperity. Given the right approach, they can make a very significant contribution to British industry. They should not be demonised. The Ford work forces in Dagenham and Southampton were given very little notification of the recent announcement, let alone a chance to serve as part of a solution to the problem. That was a missed opportunity.

Adrian Bailey: It is the trade union involvement with Jaguar Land Rover that has done so much to secure investment in the west midlands in new models and the new i54 development and, to an extent, the new Vauxhall Motors development at Ellesmere Port. Perhaps they could serve as a model for industrial communication for the purpose of promoting investment.

Jonathan Reynolds: Those are powerful and timely examples, which illustrate the positive role that trade unions can play in an industrial strategy.
	There are many other issues with which I could deal if I had time, including our relationship with Europe and the devolution of power and spending from Whitehall in the UK. I hope that other Members will refer to those. Let me end by saying how pleased I am that we are having this debate. I hope that it constitutes the beginning rather than the end of a conversation in the House about the future successful operation of the country’s industrial policy.

Chris White: May I say how delighted I am to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) in this important debate? I must also thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling time for it. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on manufacturing, along with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), one of the most consistent messages I hear is that the UK needs to have a comprehensive industrial policy setting out the key economic objectives and the policies we need to achieve them. We need, as a country, to get back on a more sustainable path to growth, which means seeking to balance our books—specifically, by reducing our trade deficit—so that Britain can be more resilient against future shocks and thrives in a more competitive world. Any industrial policy needs to consider the full range of the UK’s economic strengths, from financial services to creative industries and renewable energy. However, the most effective way of achieving a more sustainable growth trajectory is to boost manufacturing and our industrial capacity.

Gordon Birtwistle: May I advise my hon. Friend that in 1997 manufacturing was responsible for 22% of our GDP and we had a £4.4 billion surplus on the balance
	of payments, whereas by 2008 that had reduced to 12% and we had a £42.6 billion deficit on the balance of payments? Does that not show that manufacturing and exports are vital to this country?

Chris White: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I note the figures he uses. One target the Minister might like to consider in an industrial strategy is about 15% by 2015—that works in so many ways.
	We cannot afford merely to dismiss a large part of our global economy. Emerging markets are focusing on production and industry already, but they will not focus on those things for ever. Soon they will seek to compete with the developing economies in highly lucrative services, as well as in research and development. Where will the UK go then? We need to compete in manufacturing, as well as in services and the creative economy, if we are to succeed in the years ahead. The narrower our economy becomes, the more unstable it will be. We need a broad-based economic strategy, and manufacturing can and must play a crucial role in delivering that.

Andrew Bingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must not forget the very small manufacturing companies in my constituency and elsewhere? This is not all about big factories; it is also about small niche manufacturers producing specialist goods in this country.

Chris White: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As someone who worked for MG Rover, I had a great experience of the supply chain and some of the smaller businesses that supported it. They have a great part to play in our economic growth, certainly in terms of new jobs in this sector.
	It seems clear from the statements that the Government have already made that they understand and appreciate the important role that manufacturing can play in supporting the UK economy. But I hope that the Minister will see these words turned into action, and I believe that means beginning the process of developing a formal UK industrial strategy for the next 10 years, at the very least. Countries such as Germany and Japan, where industrial policy is at the very heart of government, can perhaps operate without such a formal process. However, I believe that the UK would benefit from it, not only through the consultation, debate and consensus building that would be necessary in the formulation of such a document, but from having a document against which civil servants and politicians can be held accountable through regular reviews.
	Parliament should be at the centre of the development of this industrial policy. We need a policy that can last beyond the lifetime of one Government, which means ensuring that we have policies that all parties support or broadly favour, so that we create the policy stability necessary for businesses to invest in the UK.

Guy Opperman: It is a year since we last debated manufacturing, on a Thursday late in November 2011. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some evidence that actual change has taken place, particularly on local banking? That is now that much easier because of the Financial Services Bill, which we passed on 23 April. It means that the smaller businesses
	so favoured by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) can much more ably be financed by local banks.

Chris White: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is fortuitous, and something I did not realise until he mentioned it, that a similar debate was held this time last year. I hope we have made more progress and that that will continue. One issue on which we have made progress is the business bank concept, about which I know that he spoke in that debate.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, many of which I agree with. May I point out to him that there is something we could do right now about industrial strategy? A year ago, we were bemoaning the fact that the large energy companies did not have the market certainty to invest in large infrastructure, which would have had a ripple effect on all the smaller suppliers across the UK. Three weeks ago, seven of the largest worldwide energy companies have written to the Chancellor to say that they still do not have certainty. Will he urge the Government, as I do, to put that certainty in place? There will be a ripple effect affecting tens of thousands of jobs in this country once we know that we are heading to a decarbonised future.

Chris White: All I will say is that energy and how we deliver on an energy strategy must be part of any industrial policy.
	One of the most pressing concerns for manufacturing is access to finance. At meetings of the all-party group and with constituents, bank lending is a theme we return to time and time again. We must consider closely how we will reform our banking system for the benefit of our manufacturers, which must be a key part of our industrial policy.
	Skills are another area that the Government must consider and I welcome the work that has already been done, particularly on apprenticeships. They are giving more young people the chance to learn skills in some of our excellent educational facilities—not least Warwickshire college in my constituency. We need to do more to strengthen the whole curriculum, however, so that it supports our economy, particularly by supporting science, technology, engineering and maths—the STEM subjects —at primary and secondary schools. We also need to look at apprenticeships so that we have more of the higher level apprenticeships our country needs to compete with other rapidly upskilling economies.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the importance of education and training. Is he not concerned that every year we have to import tens of thousands of qualified engineers from abroad because we cannot produce enough through our own educational system even for our diminished manufacturing sector?

Chris White: Yes, I share that concern. It is incumbent on the House and on partners with an interest in manufacturing and industry to spread the news and create a greater awareness of jobs in industry. It is a matter of attracting people to those jobs, and our
	education system has a great part to play in that. That brings us back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle).
	The Government have also rightly focused on infrastructure, on which the UK needs to improve, and a comprehensive industrial policy would seek to address that problem. A modern industrial policy must work to increase investment, by providing the right incentives and ensuring that the allowances and tax breaks make the UK one of the most attractive places in the world to do business.
	Of course, an industrial policy should also consider other areas such as research and development, energy, procurement and export support, but I believe that the most crucial thing is that we should act swiftly to work on building a new industrial policy. Sector strategies are useful, but the main obstacles to UK manufacturing are at a national level.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Chris White: If I may, I will continue.
	A strong manufacturing ecosystem cannot depend on a few favoured industries but must see the whole of industry succeed. We have an historic opportunity over the next few years to develop consensus on a policy that our country desperately needs, working across political boundaries with business, trade unions and policy experts. I hope the Government will take the opportunity to do that, enabling manufacturing to be the engine of the UK economy once again and putting our country back on the path of sustainable and balanced long-term growth.

Adrian Bailey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who are members of the all-party group on manufacturing. I think it is indicative of the consensus that is emerging on industrial policy that I heard little that I disagree with.
	I welcome the debate and the Government’s publication of an industrial strategy. Indeed, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has published any number of strategies so far, and I would find it difficult to disagree with any of the major points in them. The problem is not so much with the industrial strategy— I think that a consensus on that is emerging on the Back Benches—as with the priorities in the culture of the Government, which is not necessarily aligned with the Department’s priorities and the strategies.
	I could not help but notice the comments made by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in September:
	“The Government shapes the British economy with its decisions every day. It makes many decisions about skills and universities, on research, on technologies, and on infrastructure. Through what it buys, and how it goes about buying it, the regulations that exist, the markets it oversees, and tax policy. All of these send messages to the economy.”

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Adrian Bailey: I will, but briefly, because my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) is going to make his maiden speech.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend is right that Government decisions shape industrial strategy. I hope he might have some thoughts on where we go on carbon capture and storage as part of the strategy. It was with great regret that we found out this week that there is uncertainty over future funding and a drawing down of European funds because the Treasury was unable to provide guaranteed funding. Does he hope that CCS will be part of the industrial strategy in phase 2, which will come up next spring?

Adrian Bailey: My hon. Friend tempts me with an issue that is worthy of a separate debate, but broadly I agree, and I will make some allusions to the green economy later.
	The problem is basically that although the Minister outlines the impact of different Government policies on the economy, the Department, in its delivery in those different areas, does not necessarily seem to be signed up to the same economic and industrial priorities. For a start, on the fiscal strategy, our ability to eliminate the deficit depends crucially on our ability to generate investment in economic growth, yet at the same time the Chancellor’s strategy has effectively squeezed consumer spending and failed to recognise that in many areas public spending and private engagement with it are crucial to economic performance. That, coupled with various apocalyptic utterances about the state of the British economy, has generated a feeling of insecurity and uncertainty that has had a knock-on effect on consumers’ confidence to spend money and the willingness of businesses to invest. I hear that many businesses are currently sitting on piles of cash, but they will not invest it because they fear that the investment would not pay off. Similarly, with such uncertainty, banks are less likely to lend because they obviously sense a higher risk in doing so than they would if there was greater confidence in the economy.
	Also, the Government’s tax policies have concentrated on reducing corporation tax. All the messages I get from manufacturing—I know that the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) has strong views on this—indicate that money to generate investment would be much better focused on research and development and capital allowances than on corporation tax. Much more needs to be done to assess the relative impact of reductions in corporation tax, rather than investment in R and D and capital allowances, and where future Government policy on that should go. Given the number of foreign businesses that have invested in this country and seem to have paid very little corporation tax, I wonder how relevant the reduction in corporation tax set out in the Chancellor’s first Budget was in attracting foreign investment. I need only repeat the comments the chair of my local enterprise partnership made this week: he said improving capital allowances would be a quicker and more effective step than creating a business bank. I do not decry the long-term significance of a business bank, but right now we need some shorter-term policies that can have a more immediate impact.

Guy Opperman: One such short-term policy that would have an impact is the liberalisation of small local community banking, as that would mean there would be lending directly to small and medium-sized businesses, which is what the hon. Gentleman would like. This Government are doing that, but the Opposition voted against it. Can he explain why?

Adrian Bailey: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to address a much bigger debate about the appropriate ways of financing industry, but I am not going to do that. I have been involved in local organisations providing access to finance for small businesses, and I know that the perception of risk is crucial. It does not matter where the money might come from, because if the risk is considered too high any funds will only be available on very expensive terms.
	On green issues, the decision on solar panels, the dispute that still exists at the heart of Government on the future of wind power and the delays in the implementation of the green deal make for uncertainty in an industry that needs certainty above all else, and the Government must resolve that. In the submissions I have received from bodies representing manufacturing industry, two measures have been highlighted, which I think the all-party group would also call for. First, any industrial strategy must have at its heart a degree of certainty. That requires building a cross-party consensus that will outlive any Government, so that business can invest for the long term. That is especially relevant for green industries. Secondly, there must be changes in the culture and structure of Government that will allow economic, and in particular manufacturing, priorities to be considered across Departments. That was touched on in Lord Heseltine’s recent report, and it has featured prominently in submissions from organisations representing manufacturing. If we are to convince industry that there is a future in investing in our manufacturing, there has to be general confidence that the Government recognise these priorities and that project economic growth must be a key priority for any Government.
	Having an industrial strategy that highlights the most important measures and stimulates debate will go some way towards achieving what we want, but I have yet to be convinced that other Departments accept the logic of this argument. However, there is an emerging consensus in Parliament, especially on the Back Benches, and in industry that the two key issues of long-term certainty and having a driver within Government to prioritise economic growth are crucial. That fact, allied to an emerging public consensus that economic growth must be a priority, could provide the public opinion background to enable any Government to drive forward this agenda. There is therefore a challenge for both the Government and the Opposition to have such policies in place for the public to decide on at the next general election. That is crucial for the British economy and for the future welfare of everybody in this country.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for it was in 1984 that I made my maiden speech in the House as the newly arrived Member for Cannock and Burntwood on the subject of manufacturing in the west midlands, so I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for manufacturing industry.
	It has been a mistake in this country that for the past 40 years there has been an over-reliance on financial services as the salvation of our prosperity. The bust of 2008 has blown that apart and revealed that there is a pressing need for the United Kingdom to have a much more diversified economy. As a former international banker, I like to tell people that I am now going straight—I am a politician. For some curious reason, they think that is rather funny.
	The point has been made about the decline in manufacturing industry in Britain. Let us look at the figures. In the case of Germany, 20% of its output is now manufacturing. It has maintained its position, and of course it is benefiting from a thoroughly depressed exchange rate. Nevertheless, it has seen that manufacturing can contribute, whereas as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) pointed out, in the United Kingdom manufacturing has declined from 18.4 % of our national output in 1997 to 10.8% last year. I hope that the Opposition will not constantly deride those on the Government Benches for the decline in manufacturing industry on our watch, as it pretty well halved on theirs. I hope we can attain a consensus on the need to do something for manufacturing. There is good reason why we should be confident.

Adrian Bailey: I think I know what the hon. Gentleman means, but he has not reflected that. Manufacturing did not halve under the previous Government. As a proportion of the economy it may have done so, but it actually grew. That has been acknowledged in the Government’s policy.

Gerald Howarth: It is important to make the point that the contribution of manufacturing to output halved. That is a figure that the public will understand as indicative of what was happening.
	I want to be positive, because the United Kingdom has historic and current industrial manufacturing flair and capability. I single out just two companies—JCB, a brilliant private family company in Staffordshire, and Dyson, the inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner. [Interruption.] Indeed, Hoover too, as my hon. Friend the Minister says. Formula 1 as well has been a stunning success for advanced United Kingdom manufacturing, as has aerospace, which I shall come to in a moment.
	I remind the House that JCB employs 10,000 people worldwide, of whom 6,000 are employed in the United Kingdom. JCB’s revenues rose last year by 37% to £2.75 billion. Dyson sold eight out of 10 of its appliances abroad, with revenues of £770 million and profits of £206 million—a serious success story.

Jeremy Lefroy: I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned JCB in my county, Staffordshire. Does he agree that one of the reasons why such companies have been successful is that remaining in family hands over such a long period, they are able to take long-term investment decisions without necessarily looking to the needs of quarterly reports to the market?

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend in my old county makes my point admirably for me. A common feature of both companies that I mentioned is that they both invest heavily in research and development, which the chief executive of Dyson, Max Conze, describes as “the key to success on the world stage”.
	I want to concentrate on defence. BAE Systems and QinetiQ both have their headquarters in my constituency and I make no apology for being a strong supporter of Britain’s defence industry. According to Peter Rogers, who was last year president of ADS—the aerospace, defence and security trade body—the UK’s defence industry employed 110,000 people, of whom 25,000 were graduates and engineers, and supported a further 314,000 jobs. Turnover was £22 billion and export sales were just short of £10 billion—a fantastic record and a fantastic success story in manufacturing industry.
	The United Kingdom is a world leader in both civil and military aerospace—as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, know better than almost anybody in this House apart from myself, Sir—with Rolls-Royce in advanced aero engineering and propulsion and Airbus providing the most advanced wing manufacturing in the world. On the military front we have Typhoon, with SELEX supplying the radar and MBDA the missile systems. We have a range of companies, from Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, to EADS UK, Thales, Ultra, Chemring, Cobham, and Marshalls, to tiny bespoke hi-tech companies that should not be ignored given the fantastic contribution that they make to the cutting edge of technology. We need to maintain our leadership of that cutting edge, not only to win wars but to enable us to compete against newly emerging economies.
	If I can single out one man for his contribution to this, it is Lord Drayson, who in 2005, when he was the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement, produced a fantastic paper called “Defence Industrial Strategy” in which he said:
	“Well targeted investment in R&T is a critical enabler of our national defence capability; it strengthens innovation in our defence industry, produces more capable equipment for our Armed Forces and underpins our ability to operate with high technology allies like the US or France”.
	I could not put it better myself.

Richard Fuller: I agree that the defence industry is an important part of the manufacturing base of our country. Will my hon. Friend contrast the previous Government and this Government in terms of the leadership provided by the Prime Minister? Under Labour, QinetiQ, which now headquarters in his constituency, closed down just outside my constituency with no support from the Government. Under this Government, our Prime Minister went to China and won a contract on behalf of the Aircraft Research Association, which is based in my constituency, thereby securing jobs and securing its future.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend anticipates a point that I was going to make, so let me do so now. I fully concur. I do not think that people in this country really appreciate the extraordinary lead that the Prime Minister has given in the promotion of defence exports. Having been the Minister responsible for defence exports, I can testify to his determination, vigour, enthusiasm and commitment. There is every prospect that that commitment will pay off, because he has seriously re-engaged the United Kingdom with the rest of the world in a way that the previous Prime Minister was wholly incapable of doing.
	In respect of defence exports, we are increasingly being required to transfer our technology as well; indeed, that appears to be the only way in which we will be able to win these contracts. In looking at the technology, it is very important to understand the significance of defence research. I have QinetiQ in my constituency, but I also have Roke Manor in Hampshire, which produces fantastic defence research and has 400 engineers. In 2009, BAE Systems invested £833 million in defence research.
	We have a good record, but I am afraid that the previous Government do not have such a good record. In 1990-91, at 2009-10 prices, real defence R and D expenditure was £3.8 billion, but in 2009-10 that figure declined to £1.7 billion. In other words, it declined from 11.6% of the defence budget to 4.4% of it. As Lord Drayson said in his 2006 document, “Defence Technology Strategy”, today’s equipment is the result of yesterday’s investment in research. He also said:
	“Current threats emphasise that science and technology is fundamental to UK military capability.”
	Maintaining a vibrant defence industrial base is not a throwback to a 1960s socialist planning concept, as it appears that some of my colleagues believe, but an essential ingredient in the defence of the realm and in contributing to the export-led economic recovery that the Prime Minister wants and which, as I said, he is leading.
	I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) for his sterling endeavours to ensure that the case for supporting British technology was made within Government, but I fear that the right balance has not been struck. People need to understand the consequences of simply buying abroad. Initially we might get a good price and the kit that we want, but then next time we are told, “The price has gone up, so I’m sorry but you can’t have the same capability.” We then find ourselves on a very slippery slope where we cease to be major players in the world and cease to be able to command our own operational sovereignty. We are facing that issue with the joint strike fighter. There is ongoing argument over our access to the technology. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, know a great deal about that. It is imperative that, as equity partners in the joint strike fighter programme, we have that operational sovereignty.
	Seeking to grow the UK’s defence industrial base must not be an excuse for the military to over-specify its requirements or for the industry to inflate its prices. Competition clearly has a role to play in restraining such excess, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) suggested. However, other nations, including an increasing number of emerging countries, are investing in military capability development and their demand for our products is likely to decline. That raises the inevitable question: from where will the United Kingdom derive its income in the future? I submit to the Minister that the answer has to be in upping our expenditure on defence research, for all the reasons that I have set out.
	As a former Bank of England man and adviser to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I say to the Minister that the position of R and D tax credits needs to be looked at again. QinetiQ has pointed out to me that it is being seriously disadvantaged by the Treasury’s proposal to change R and D tax credits to make them above the line, which would remove the fiscal incentive for companies
	that focus mainly on research, rather than development, to locate their activity in the United Kingdom. Given the strength of feeling around the House this evening about the importance of our manufacturing industry, I hope that the Minister will take back to his friends in the Treasury the need to ensure that we incentivise industry and the Government to invest in our technology. That will be hugely important for the defence of Britain and for our defence industrial base.

Nigel Evans: I remind the House to observe the conventions of the maiden speech.

Andy Sawford: I am very proud to speak in the Chamber for the first time as the Member of Parliament for Corby. Locally, we know the constituency as Corby and east Northamptonshire, comprising as it does both Corby town itself and the surrounding villages, the four towns of Raunds, Irthlingborough, Thrapston and Oundle, and many villages across east Northamptonshire.
	I will start by paying tribute to my predecessor. Louise Mensch served as Corby’s MP in her own unique style. She was proud to be a vocal woman MP, speaking up for women in public life. She played an important role on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, particularly on matters concerning the role of the media, in which she took a great interest. She championed the local media, such as in her debate earlier this year in which she praised our excellent local newspaper, the Corby Telegraph. She was also known as an advocate of social media. As I know already, combining family life with the demands of being an MP is challenging, but in my predecessor’s case there was also the matter of an ocean between those two parts of her life. I wish her and her family well in the future.
	Louise had a tough act to follow. Her immediate predecessor, the Labour and Co-operative MP, Phil Hope, served for 13 years and was well known as a very hard-working local MP who was concerned with his constituents. He was instrumental in the opening of a new railway station in Corby, the opening of children’s centres across the area, major health service improvements and the building of new schools. He also served with distinction as a Minister.
	Like Phil Hope, I am a co-operator, and I am proud to be a member of the Co-operative group of MPs, which this week has reached record numbers. The first ever Co-operative MP in the country was elected to represent my constituency, on its earlier boundaries, in 1918. The driving force behind Alf Waterson’s selection was the blastfurnacemen’s union in Corby. Although Northamptonshire had once been a stronghold of the Liberals, in the early 20th century, a more radical culture emerged from the chapels and the boot and shoe industry, in which past generations of my family were employed. Local co-operatives in towns across the constituency became a vital part of the local economy, and still feature strongly today. I believe that co-operative approaches, such as mutual housing and new energy co-ops, can play a big role in my constituency’s future.
	The towns of Raunds and Irthlingborough are known for their co-operative heritage, and as boot and shoe towns. Raunds’s place in history is assured by the events
	of the Raunds strike of 1905, during which a party of boot operatives marched to London to demand fair wages.
	The Times
	reported:
	“Their arrival was awaited in Parliament by a large number of people in Parliament Square, from where a deputation of ten proceeded into Parliament to meet with MPs. Afterwards, the men were admitted to the Strangers Gallery, and a slight disturbance was created.”
	Although I urge no disturbance in the Strangers Gallery today, I assure the descendents of those Raunds marchers that I will continue their campaign for fair wages.
	All those years ago the War Office agreed to the demands of Raunds workers and committed to a minimum rate of pay that people could live on. Today, I urge all parts of the public sector in Corby and east Northamptonshire, and the private sector, to consider the case for a living wage of £7.45 an hour. Too many people in my constituency are being squeezed by rising food and fuel prices, and by other factors such as the role of employment agencies in our local labour market. Too many people are on zero-hours contracts where no work is guaranteed. When they do work they are paid low wages with agencies taking a cut of their earnings, and sometimes workers are poorly treated. I am also concerned about the way in which some agencies have set up offices overseas to facilitate employment in my constituency; I want them to make a much more determined effort to ensure that local people are given employment opportunities. I have raised that point with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I am grateful that he has listened and said that he will take action.
	In these tough economic times, many people in my constituency are unable to find work at all. Independent studies show that Corby is the most difficult place in the country to be a young unemployed person looking for work. Corby is, and must be, a working town. It is particularly well known as a steel town. Corby provided the steel for Operation Pluto—the famous pipeline under the ocean—which provided the fuel for allied forces invading Normandy in world war two. My granddad was there on D-day as a Royal Marine commando, and my other granddad, who worked in farming, helped to feed that Army and the country. Both would later become Corby steelworkers.
	Today Corby’s steel tubes can be found at the Olympic park, and seen on everything from the Wembley arch to the millennium wheel across the river from this House. Tata is still a major local employer and I support its call for a level playing field on energy prices—which it tells me are much cheaper in continental Europe—and, crucially, for investment in infrastructure to boost demand. These are key issues for manufacturing industry in the UK. I want to see more action to create jobs, such as a one-off tax on bankers’ bonuses to pay for a real jobs guarantee for young people, and help our small firms with a one-year national insurance tax break if they take on extra workers. I will also work locally with businesses, councils, schools and colleges. Skills matching is a particular issue, helping people to gain the skills they need for the jobs that will be created.
	I was struck by the experience of a local man I met recently. He had started his working life as an apprentice toolmaker, carrying out a high-quality apprenticeship and being mentored by an older toolmaker who was in his last few years before retirement. I want such experiences to be much more widely available to support
	our young people to develop great skills and careers in the manufacturing industries—the important subject of today’s debate.
	Corby is very proud of its Scottish connections and has a large population of Scottish descent. The Highland gathering is a big event, as are the Burns suppers. Generations of Scots and other people coming to the town have blended with Northamptonshire people to create a distinctive, incredibly strong and proud community that it really is a privilege to represent. There has not always been such co-operation between the Scots and the English in my constituency. Today Fotheringhay is one of our many beautiful villages, but it has a more gory past as the place where Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded. I assure the House that today there is a more harmonious spirit and we believe that England and Scotland are definitely better together.
	That spirit has enabled Corby to survive at times of great hardship. In the 1980s. 10,000 people were made redundant at the steelworks—my own dad was one of them—and that experience shaped my childhood. My dad went to Ruskin college to study, while my mum worked in a leather goods factory to pay the bills. My dad, who is here today, went on to become the Member of Parliament for Kettering from 1997 to 2005, and I am very proud to continue my family’s record of public service.
	I look forward to raising other issues that matter a great deal to my constituents, such as the future of vital local services, including our schools, local policing and health services. I am particularly concerned about the threat of serious cuts to Kettering general hospital. It is where my own children were born, and it serves people across my constituency. I will do everything I can to protect our hospital services. I will speak up, too, for our more vulnerable residents: the families affected by cuts to special needs services; those who rely on disability benefit who feel unfairly treated by these Atos reviews; and the pensioners, who want to know that their MP is on their side.
	Thank you for the warm welcome, Mr Deputy Speaker, from the staff of the House and MPs on both sides, and from my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip—[ Laughter. ] I intend to work hard here in Parliament and in my constituency for all the residents in all the towns and villages. I very much look forward to the honour of representing Corby and east Northamptonshire in the years ahead.

Eric Ollerenshaw: It is a pleasure to follow the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford). Clearly, my two Saturdays in Corby did not turn out too well. I remember the rain in Thrapston. I offer him many congratulations. Obviously he is a man of strong views, and he puts them across clearly. I have known him before—briefly—in his professional life. He proves that he does his homework and research, and will make a great addition to the House. Unfortunately for Government Members, it looks like he will stay the course.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White)
	and for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), on getting this debate under way. I declare an interest in Stalybridge and Hyde—I spent my childhood at Hyde county grammar, and used to live in Dukinfield, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. My sister still lives there and works at the company the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the debate.
	We need to rebalance the economy in terms of the types of the businesses we have, but getting manufacturing and industrial policy right is critical in rebalancing the economy regionally. I am pleased the hon. Gentleman said we do not want to go back to the failed policies of the 1970s in trying to pick company winners—he agrees with Government Members on that. Surely the Government’s job will be to identify sectors where we already have a world lead, such as life sciences, higher manufacturing and aerospace, as well as sectors of high growth, such as the automotive industry.
	As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) pointed out, we need a strategy that resolves the country’s energy needs, which will give stability for investors on which to build an increased manufacturing base. We also need a positive climate for inward investment and business start-up.
	The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) mentioned a competitive tax regime. I congratulate the Government on what they have done on corporation tax, which I believe is having an impact. We need a competitive tax regime, but we also need a regime under which tax is collected.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington emphasised education policy and the reforms the Government are introducing to ensure that we have properly trained and qualified workers, which hon. Members on both sides say we need. When we meet local employers, they complain about their employees.
	I agree with other hon. Members on apprenticeships. I congratulate the Government on what they have done—we have nearly half a million new apprenticeships. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a small manufacturing factory in my constituency—it is essentially small scale, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). A and G Precision and Sons Ltd has only 40 employees, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) will be pleased to know, it supplies parts to BAE Systems for the Typhoon fighter. Only this year, it decided two work experience lads from the local school into full-time paid apprenticeships. I see the beginning of that welcome change throughout my constituency. The other part of that—my hon. Friend has just touched on it and it is one of my main points—is the encouragement of R and D, so that our companies remain at the cutting edge in their field.
	My constituency benefits from having Lancaster university in it—one of the top 10 universities. The university has recently been made a centre of excellence for cyber-security, and has the potential to generate multi-billion pound business across the world. We need to build on that. In my constituency, ideas have been developed and transferred. For example, First Subsea Ltd took a design from the university and has now produced an engineering mechanism to pick up pipes and buoys from under the sea for the oil industry. It employs 45 people and has sales departments in all the major oil-producing parts of the world.
	I have previously made this point, but we have missed a trick with local enterprise zones. I have never understood why we could not give every university the potential to have their own enterprise zone. The purpose of enterprise zones is to encourage start-ups. Where do start-ups start? Many of them at the high end start with universities. We also want enterprise zones where businesses, as they expand, eventually move off and pay their taxes like every other business.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is making an important point. May I remind him that Surrey Satellite Technology, a fantastic world leader in satellite technology, was spun out of the university of Surrey? That reinforces his point about the role that universities can perform in advancing high technology.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.
	When I make inquiries, I am told that the problem in defining and facilitating university enterprise zones lies apparently with the Treasury. The Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), is an expert in these areas and I am not. However, I am told that the Treasury rules are that it has to make a calculation about the taxes it would have received from companies that have not yet been set up in order to make a decision about whether to allow an enterprise zone to be created. How civil servants can calculate the tax of non-existent companies—or new companies that have not even been dreamed up—I am not quite clear, but to me there is something wrong with the system.
	Our universities have pushed forward the science park idea—Cambridge is a notable example—and it is being pursued by Lancaster university to enable graduates with skills and ideas to stay in the local area. To underline my theme, we have to use this policy to rebalance the contribution to growth that the regions make. The council, under general powers of competence, has the power to vary business rates. The concept suggested by the university, the council and myself was to have an enterprise zone-lite. The local council could define the area of the science park and lower business rates. The problem then—going back to the Treasury rules—is that the local council would then have to calculate the difference between the full business rate and an estimate of what those companies, some of which might not have even been set up, might have to pay. That seems to defeat the whole object, but watch this space. We are still trying to pursue where we can go with this. It is key that policy is not only about what Government can do—I will say a little bit more about that—but what local councils and local authorities can do, on their own volition, with the new powers that the Government are giving them. That policy, based around universities, is the key to top-level manufacturing and to growing the economy of the north and, in particular, my constituency.
	Hon. Members have mentioned exports. Lots of companies in my constituency export. I have mentioned before a company in Fleetwood that exports 50 tonnes of whelks to Korea. Only the other week, I was called by someone from another company in Fleetwood. I do not know if this counts as manufacturing, but the gentleman there reconditions and patches up end-of-life
	heavy trucks. He has found that the market in developing countries is either for brand-new Chinese trucks or British Bedford ex-defence vehicles—probably the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot secured the contract for many years ago. He says that the Chinese trucks do not last five minutes. I have no comment to make—I am not a truck expert—but he says that although they are glittering they do not survive very long.
	The gentleman in question, then, has found a market in the developing world for reconditioned heavy vehicles, so why did he approach me? He wanted to know whether I had contacts with other countries that might want to get involved. Having been a member of the all-party group on Kurdistan, I mentioned Kurdistan. That taught me a lesson, because he came back and said, “We’re looking at Kurdistan”. Where was UK Trade & Investment? Through contacts in the all-party group, he contacted the consular staff, who were extremely helpful, and now he is on his way to selling reconditioned trucks to Kurdistan. Where was UKTI? Its role is pivotal. A small business that wants to be in the export market needs a simple lead.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments about reconditioned British vehicles, which are much-sought-after all around the world, but does he agree that there is another problem, as experienced by a company in my constituency? Reconditioned UK Army vehicles, which cannot be described anymore as military vehicles, are banned from export to certain countries, yet similar German army vehicles are available in those places, because German companies face no such obstacles.

Eric Ollerenshaw: My hon. Friend clearly demonstrates his point about reconditioned vehicles. I do not want to prolong this debate, but clearly there is a market. Small businesses at—I would say “the coal face”, but we do not have one anymore—the end of manufacturing do not have time to make the phone calls and make the contacts. They need support. For that reason, I welcome some of the changes to UKTI. In particular, I welcome its approach to Members about getting these meetings going in their particular areas. That will, I hope, provide the contacts, so that no longer do I have to be called in to make the contacts myself. As I learnt, we should not assume that these small businesses are not looking at what is available on the global market. All they want is the assistance to get into that global market, and obviously we should do everything we can to address our concerns about manufacturing.
	I supported the abolition of regional development agencies, although I should declare an interest, as a past member of the London Development Agency—why London needed an RDA I never understood, even though I sat on the board. I have, however, been a great supporter of local enterprise partnerships, and I take Lord Heseltine’s point about giving them greater support. I support LEPs because areas such as Lancaster and Fleetwood—at the north end of Lancashire—and surrounding constituencies, are dominated by Manchester and Liverpool. So despite serious concerns about the proposal for city regions and the dominance of those areas, which in my constituency resulted in little help from the RDA, I hope that we will get some help from the LEP.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. In order to accommodate everybody who wants to take part in this debate there will be a seven-minute limit on speeches.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I first congratulate my new hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his absolutely splendid maiden speech? I have some connection with him in a sense, because I come from the east midlands, my grandfather worked in the boot and shoe industry, and at this moment I am wearing a pair of English leather shoes that were probably made in his constituency—and splendid shoes they are, too. It really was an excellent speech, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend’s father is here to hear it, because he was a very good personal friend and comrade in this place. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is following in his father’s footsteps and I welcome him to the House of Commons.
	I want to mention Bedford trucks as well, because the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) mentioned them. They were made just outside my constituency in Dunstable and are all over Pakistan—thousands of them can be seen there today. Many people think it was a great mistake to stop manufacturing the basic truck, which is so rugged and can work in any conditions—and no doubt is infinitely superior to the Chinese competition.
	I want to talk about Britain’s experience of manufacturing. Britain has suffered from savage deindustrialisation, brought about by utterly misguided economic policies enacted over a long period. We have had many figures quoted to us today. We only have to look at, say, the comparable 2006 figures from Germany and Britain, to see that manufacturing comprised 12.4% of our economy in Britain and 23.2% of Germany’s economy—almost twice as much. Germany is indeed the economic powerhouse of Europe, and one can see why. During the period 2000 to 2010, the UK share of world trade fell by 28%, whereas Germany’s fell by a mere 3%. Why are our countries so different? Governments in Britain have made persistent attempts to sustain an overvalued exchange rate. This goes right back to even the 1931 crisis, which sadly destroyed the Labour Government, because they did not realise that they could come off the gold standard and devalue, which is what they should have done and what happened immediately after they lost office.
	Then we had the 1949 devaluation—very sensible—and in 1967, again after resisting devaluation for a long time, we eventually devalued, following which the economy of course bounced a bit. But then in 1979 we had the Thatcher Government, who immediately introduced policies that saw a massive appreciation of the pound. In two years we saw a fifth of manufacturing industry disappear and unemployment rise to 3 million, simply because of the massive appreciation of the pound and the collapse in demand for manufacturing. Between ’82 and ’88, in the Nigel Lawson period, we saw a pretty savage depreciation of the pound—by some 35% from peak to trough—and a great recovery because of that depreciation.

Paul Farrelly: One of the industries hardest hit has been ceramics. One of the things that we have wanted for years in the ceramics
	industry is accurate country-of-origin marking and an end to bogus back-stamping. If something says “Made in England”, it should be made in England. Other countries in Europe want that in the ceramics industry, but the UK has always stood in the way. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we had a more open mind to such measures to ensure accurate consumer information, counter counterfeiting and give our industries a fighting chance?

Kelvin Hopkins: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I have a wonderful set of Wedgwood china, which we use on special occasions, that no doubt comes from his constituency.
	Then we had the 1990 to 1992 exchange rate mechanism disaster—again, an attempt to pinion our currency, in essence against the Deutschmark. We recovered from that after we devalued substantially—golden Wednesday—and the economy started to strengthen again. Indeed, if that economic strengthening had continued for three or four years longer, Labour might not have won the 1997 election, because we won on the basis of the terrible mistake made by the Conservative Government by going into the ERM. Those are key factors—the key factor, I think—in our economic weakness. But Germany kept its Deutschmark at low parity for a prolonged period, and was allowed to do so because West Germany had to be, inevitably, the showcase for western capitalism against the east, and everything was done to ensure that Germany succeeded. It was permitted; it was allowed by the rest of the western world to keep its currency low as a necessary condition for economic success. Other factors, of course, were used to ensure that the Germans were successful, including a very strong interventionist industrial policy, which we forgot and left behind when we abandoned, for example, the National Economic Development Council, abolished by the Tory Government.

Robert Buckland: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about Germany. Would he join me in congratulating the Germans on the important supply side reforms that they have made in recent years, to liberalise their economy and to make it the exporting success that it clearly is? Is that not a lesson for the United Kingdom?

Kelvin Hopkins: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we can recover by taking supply side measures, he is gravely mistaken. It is the macro-economic measures that the Germans took that were the basis for their success. Supply side measures can no doubt help, but having a low parity for the currency and then ensuring that investment goes into manufacturing above all was the key to German success. The euro, of course, is an invention, essentially to pinion the Deutschmark within the euro at a relatively low parity compared with the countries that Germany exports to. If those countries outside Germany but inside the eurozone were permitted to recreate their own currencies and devalue, they would not be able to buy quite so many BMWs and Mercedes as they do at the moment, and that would affect Germany. One of the reasons Germany is so keen to keep the eurozone going is simply that Germans know very well that if the eurozone was disaggregated, or collapsed, depending on how one chooses to describe it, the Deutschmark would immediately appreciate and Germany would have much more serious difficulties.
	We have had that constant problem with our exchange rate. Ours has always been high, and Governments have tried to keep it high. Germany’s has always been low and German Governments have made sure it stayed low. I have had a number of experiences, about which I have written in the past, and spoken on many occasions. In 1988 I went to a meeting of the Anglo-German Foundation and raised the question of the “balance of trade problem” with Germany. I was immediately told to shut up by a very angry representative of the then German Government. I thought I was just raising something that was obvious to everyone, but he was very upset that I even raised the issue. In 1988 the Institute for Public Policy Research produced a pamphlet, “The German Surplus,” which raised that issue. That too was suppressed. I tried to get extra copies; I was told there was none. I asked who wrote it; no one would tell me. Clearly, the Europhiles inside the organisation were suppressing that document because it would damage our relationships with the European Union, which we were moving towards.
	Macro-economics is the core problem. We could do lots of other things as well, but the macro-economics must be right. We must ensure that our exchange rate is right, and the only way we are going to start to recover industrially—in manufacturing terms—is first to have a substantial depreciation and then do other things to ensure we recover. If we do not do that, we are in for a very bleak time.
	I have with me the fine document produced by the Library every month, “The Economic Indicators,” which I read avidly. Let us look at the trade balances—visible trade. In 2010, Germany had a trade surplus—converted by the Library into dollars, for comparison’s sake—of $204 billion, when the UK had a deficit of $151 billion. That is the difference between countries. It should be, in many other ways, very similar. They have got it right; we have got it wrong. The UK trade deficit with the EU27—essentially with Germany—in August, the last month recorded, was £4.9 billion in one month, up from £4.4 billion in July. So it is getting worse. Most of that is, of course, with the Germans. The UK trade deficit for 2011 tipped over the £100 billion mark—a staggering figure. No other country would be able to sustain that, and we must do something about it in time.
	Only a much lower exchange rate will make it possible to increase exports and drive an economic, and specifically industrial, revival in the UK. Only then will we see unemployment come down and living standards start to rise again. We must do this; it is a necessary, vital condition for success, and if we do not do it, we have a bleak future before us.

Jeremy Lefroy: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his excellent maiden speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing this important debate.
	I firmly believe that the United Kingdom needs a long-term industrial policy, but it must be rooted in growth. There is no point in focusing on economic sectors that will not create jobs and wealth for the UK
	in the future. We have fought shy of introducing an industrial policy in the UK for many years, because we believe that Governments should not be in the business of picking winners. It is true that a Government should not select one company over another, but we will be failing our country and future generations if we do not look ahead to see which economic sectors are likely to prosper and which are likely to fade away.
	Suspicious as we have been about industrial policies, we have nevertheless had them over the years. In the midlands, in and around my constituency, I can see the positive results of at least three of them. Rolls-Royce aero-engine manufacturing was saved—perhaps fortuitously, and not as a result of a deliberate policy—by a Conservative Government intervention in 1971 after the company overreached itself with the development of the RB211 engine. Rolls-Royce employs tens of thousands of highly-skilled staff, contributes greatly to UK manufacturing exports—I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on the need for rebalancing—and is one of the best-known British products on earth.
	Alstom, the largest private sector employer in my constituency, was assisted by a French Government intervention in 2003. Since then, it has consolidated its world-leading role in developing high-voltage direct current transmission as well as being the only remaining manufacturer of large transformers in the UK. It, too, makes a significant contribution to the UK balance of payments.
	Jaguar Land Rover is investing heavily in south Staffordshire, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) said earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) and other neighbouring MPs have worked hard to secure that investment, alongside the strong support of both Staffordshire county council and Wolverhampton city council. In recent years, the UK Government have made a determined effort to attract automotive investment, and this is one of the many fruits of their and the local councils’ efforts.
	So industrial policy can work, but only that last one could be said to be the result of a determined effort by the UK to establish a proper policy that is consistent, long term and based on a competitive advantage. That is happening in the automotive industry. Another industry that needs a long-term policy is energy, in regard not only to the consumers of energy but to the manufacturers of the equipment used in the industry. Such manufacturers in my own constituency and many others across the country are world leaders.
	What are the building blocks of a successful industrial policy that will stand our country in good stead for the 21st century? I shall make a few suggestions. First, we need a clear understanding of what we will concentrate on. The Netherlands, as so often, provides a good example, as has been set out in Lord Heseltine’s excellent report. The report sets out the nine top sectors in which it believes the Netherlands has a competitive advantage and on which it wishes to concentrate. They include agro-food, horticulture and water—all of which the Netherlands has a lot of—as well as manufacturing and service industries such as chemicals and logistics. The report identifies a “golden triangle” involving links between businesses, research institutions such as universities, and the Government.
	Secondly, we need to ensure that we not only make the end products but control as much of the supply chain as possible. That is particularly the case in the aerospace and automotive industries, which are making efforts in that regard. The supply chain has been relatively hollow in those industries until recently. It has become clear that the UK’s manufacturing base has become increasingly reliant on imported components.
	Thirdly, we have to ensure that our education and training system is more closely integrated with the needs of the sectors on which we are concentrating. It has been said in this Chamber more times than I can remember that we face a critical shortage of engineers. That is why, this week in Stafford, we are looking into forming a local engineering partnership between universities, colleges, schools and industry. Science and research are an easy target for cuts in both public and private sector budgets because the results are further down the road, whereas the benefits of the cost reduction are felt straight away. But that investment must be maintained. I welcome the Government’s action in protecting the science budget in cash terms in the last spending review, and I urge them to do the same and more in the next one.

Paul Farrelly: The hon. Gentleman is also a great friend of the ceramics industry in north Staffordshire. Does he agree that a laissez-faire approach often translates in government to a “faire rien” approach—doing nothing. I mentioned country-of-origin marking a few moments ago. A measure such as that, we agreed, is not protectionist, but it would afford some support to our industry and is much needed.

Jeremy Lefroy: I totally agree. I have supported country-of-origin marking for many years to ensure that people know that they are getting the best of British and not some foreign substitute or import. It is vital to maintain the quality of our products around the world.
	An industrial policy must set out quite clearly how much we as a nation value research and back up warm words with action. Here, I mention research and development capital allowances. Capital allowances are vital for encouraging companies to invest the cash they have on their balance sheets—some £70 billion at the last count—into productive plant, equipment and other capital investments.
	Finally, I turn to finance. It is naïve to think that all good projects will attract commercial finance in the UK. If that were the case, we would be the home of many more of the largest companies in the world because the technologies were invented here. The first large computer was built on the work of people such as Alan Turing, and the plasma screen was invented in Malvern by what is now QinetiQ but was then the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment. Then there is the work on the human genome, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) mentioned. We should have more of these large companies, but we lack them because the finance was not available.
	That is why I think the Government’s business bank proposal is a good start, but it needs to be the source of long-term patient capital. Lord Heseltine’s reminder in his report of the work that the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation did after the war is welcome, and
	I urge the Government to consider his suggestion of providing more such long-term capital through the business bank.
	In conclusion, an industrial policy is not a panacea, but it is a structure that provides the inventiveness and entrepreneurship of the people of the United Kingdom the best possible chance to thrive in a competitive world.

Geoffrey Robinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and my parliamentary near neighbour the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing the debate. It was a good initiative of the all-party group on manufacturing to secure this debate about a year after we had the last one. This is a year in which we can see ever more clearly just how important manufacturing is to the country, but also how far we still have to go because of the relatively little progress we have made.
	I do not want to interject any party political emphasis into anything I say. Indeed, I think that, on the whole, the debate has been remarkably clear of that. That shows one of the great advantages of having Backbench Business Committee debates. Although it is delightful to see the Minister and the shadow Minister in their places to respond to the debate—we can take advantage of that—I do not think it was ever intended that they would engage with each other in Dispatch Box altercations. On these occasions, Back Benchers can speak for their constituencies and for the whole country without the sort of pressures that inevitably arise on party political occasions.
	Having said that, as far as the industrial strategy goes, I very much take to heart what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said in his brilliant tour d’horizon of post-war economic history, highlighting the great advantages that Germany has had. I do not think, however, that we should look wistfully or enviously at Germany’s position, as a period of prolonged devaluation or low-value exchange rate will not be available to us. Looking to the future, it might be less important to us than it was for Germany over long periods and still is within Europe. The one good thing is that we are outside the euro, but I do not think that long-term depreciation of sterling will ever be allowed, even with a floating exchange rate such as the one we have now.
	From my experience both inside and outside the House, the basis for an industrial strategy comes back to the Government not only in respect of the provision of finance, but—and this is of equal importance—in respect of the intelligent and unobtrusive use of Government purchasing. Those two things go together. What the country desperately needs—this is agreed throughout the House—is a major infrastructure programme. However, it is proving extraordinarily difficult to get one under way. One of the two or three questions that I want to ask the Minister—I am sure that he will have time to deal with all of them—is this: what is the real stumbling block? Is it a lack of confidence outside, or is it a lack of Government confidence in the projects?
	There is a lot of talk about a lack of confidence in the market at present—many Members have referred to it—and there is no doubt that it exists; but, as I have
	said many times, although the House is yet to be as seized of it as I am, the Government are showing a lack of confidence in British manufacturing, from the Treasury down through various other Departments. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), they are afraid to invest real money on a long-term basis. Unless we can get over this fear of failure, invest in the long term, and stick with projects despite the difficulties, we shall not succeed.
	In that respect, the Government’s role is vital. An industrial strategy comes down to this. Government finance for infrastructure is desperately needed now, for economic and other reasons. What is holding it up? The process is stuck: the Minister knows that, and the Government know it. It would be helpful if the House could be told what we can do, or what anyone can do, to get these projects under way.
	Some aspects of the second issue that I want to raise were dealt with by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who, as is recognised in the House and widely outside it, speaks with great authority about high-technology industries. Several sectors are involved, and I want to ask the Minister about one in particular. The Government took a bold initiative in becoming a partner and stakeholder in the joint strike fighter project. What I want to know is whether we are being given access to the software technology that is so vital to the process of landing on and taking off from British aircraft carriers.
	I understand that the problem lies with Congress rather than with the President or the White House as such. I do not think that it is to do with the political side of things. However, I understand that there is still some reluctance in Congress. It seems that, having taken a risk and invested, I believe, $2 billion many years ago when that was real money, we are now being denied key access to points of software interface between landing and taking off involving aircraft carriers that are different from those that the Americans had. Can the Minister assure us categorically that the problems have now been solved and that we are being given access to what we vitally need?

Gerald Howarth: Although the joint fighter aircraft was not part of my portfolio in the Ministry of Defence, I believe that Lockheed Martin’s argument was that it was still struggling with the technology itself. However, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. It is imperative for the United Kingdom to be insistent in this regard. The United States is our closest ally. It has looked to us for political support, which we have given, and it needs to return that support.

Geoffrey Robinson: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. There are always problems with those crucial software interfaces, but this was not really that sort of problem. It was made clear by members of Congress, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, that they were unhappy about releasing the key elements that we needed, for various spurious, specious reasons. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the problem has been resolved.
	As I said, public purchasing is vital, and I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date on it. We are looking for a new approach from the Government. I hope that it will not amount to an overtly “buy British”
	campaign; indeed, I cannot conceive of its doing so, because that is not in the nature of the civil service. It would be counter-productive, and in any case it would not be allowed. As I said earlier, we must be intelligent and unobtrusive, which implies that we must have confidence in British companies.
	One Department to which that applies particularly is the Department for Transport. There seems to be a tremendous anti-British bias within that Department, which was especially noticeable in regard to the Bombardier project. The Department said that the decision must be based strictly on price, fundability and the strength of the company. However, there are other factors, to which the Government’s new public purchasing policy should refer and which are allowed under the treaty of Rome. May we please have some indication of when we will see the policy, and some assurance that it will allow us at least as wide a margin of appreciation in assessing such projects as is taken by the French and, for that matter, the Germans? The Germans have a simple policy—German is best. So they buy German and they do not have to do any more. The French pretty much have a policy that says, “Buy French”, but nobody ever says it. We cannot find examples of that being said, even in writing, but the policy does exist. Will the Minister let us know when we will see the new public purchasing policy and what we might expect to see in it?
	On the banks, what are the Government really doing to provide finance for small companies, a matter to which several hon. Members have referred? We know that the money is there, but the cost involved is huge and no real solution has yet been found by government. Why do we not do something with the Royal Bank of Scotland? We could turn it into a bank for industry and give a long time for its sale and the repayment of the money. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions when he winds up.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Four speakers are left, and the Front Benchers have to begin at 4.35 pm. So to share the time out I am going to give each speaker five minutes. If there are interventions, the time will come off the last speaker and they will end up with no time at all.

Graham Evans: I start by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on securing this debate.
	The manufacturing and industrial sectors have a vital part to play in developing the UK’s economy. They are also very important to me, as I spent more than 20 years working in the manufacturing industry. I starting out working for BAE Systems at Woodford on airborne early-warning Nimrods in the 1980s. The chemical industry is of particular importance to my constituency, where Tata and INEOS Chlor are still major employers in Northwich and Runcorn. What have the Romans done for us? They started the chemical industry in Cheshire when they discovered salt deposits in Northwich. I am therefore very pleased that this issue has been chosen by the Backbench Business Committee for today’s debate.
	I wish to address Britain’s historical relationship with manufacturing industry, where the industry sits now, and what we must do to ensure that our great tradition adapts and flourishes in a changing market. Manufacturing industry has seen a steep decline since 1997. The number of jobs in manufacturing halved between 1997 and 2009. The manufacturing industry accounted for 20% of the UK’s total economy and a gross value added of £186.6 billion in 1997. That plummeted to £139.5 billion by 2009, accounting for a mere 10.5% of the economy. The reduction was £3.5 billion per annum in real terms. Only since 2010 has there been an increase in the figures, but progress is limited and growth rates have been mixed this year.
	Despite the decline, manufacturing has a vital role to play in our current economy, with 46% of the value of all exports in 2011 accounted for by manufactured goods. I represent a north-west constituency, so I am acutely aware that manufacturing industry directly benefits all the regions. Some 97% of manufacturing jobs are based outside London. We have been left with the appalling legacy that under the Labour Government only one in 10 of the jobs created were outside London and the south-east. For Britain to thrive we must redress that balance, and it is clear that manufacturing is part of the answer.
	So what areas should we focus on? As some of my hon. Friends may recall, this is not the first time I have spoken in the Chamber on the subject of manufacturing. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who is no longer in his place, alluded to the debate we held on 24 November last year. On that occasion, I set out some of the ways in which I believed the Government could proactively develop and promote the industry. I am, therefore, delighted to report that several of my suggestions have appeared, perhaps less by design than chance, as part of Department for Business, Innovation and Skills policy.
	I made considerable reference to the Germans’ long-term support for manufacturing, which has given their industry real economic clout from far humbler beginnings after the second world war, when the country had been devastated. Germany’s recognition that manufacturing was the backbone of its economy has resulted in political infrastructures set up to nurture industry, especially the mittelstand—the small and medium-sized enterprises. Foremost among those tools stands KfW, the state-backed bank that ensures the mittelstand can access funding, even when the commercial banks are unwilling to lend. In 2010, KfW financed a record €28 billion for SMEs. The latest SME finance monitors show that in the UK over the past year 33% of businesses that applied for a loan were rejected. If the Government do not take up the mantle of supporting SMEs, we cannot expect any of our industries, and especially not manufacturing, to grow.
	Hon. Members can imagine my delight when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced the launch of the funding for lending scheme to encourage banks to invest; the enterprise capital funds and enterprise finance guarantees to help early-stage business to access capital; the £1.2 billion business finance partnership; and the £2.5 billion business growth fund.
	I also spoke in the earlier debate on encouraging education and how to engage young people so that they think of manufacturing as a future career. I set out my concerns that part of the problem of youth unemployment is that many are simply not equipped with the skills or given the aspiration to engage in the manufacturing industry. Again, I am very pleased that the Government have made a long-term commitment to world-class skills.
	It is clear that new technologies are emerging, particularly at the fantastic Sci-Tech Daresbury in my constituency. It is clear that many factors will contribute to the success or failure of the manufacturing industry and I am pleased that once more we are debating this important topic. The interest shown by so many colleagues on both sides of the House is heartening, but we all have a responsibility to ensure that “Made in Britain” is something that future generations can say with pride. I sincerely hope that we will tackle the challenges of manufacturing head on.

Michael Meacher: I, like others in the Chamber, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his excellent, confident speech. I am sure that we will see a great deal more of him in the Chamber.
	Today’s debate is about one of the most important and neglected areas in British politics: the abandonment of industrial policy under the embrace of neo-liberal capitalism has, in my view, been one of the most catastrophic errors of the past three decades. It has been a fundamental mistake to believe that the massive switch away from manufacturing to services, particularly financial services in the City of London, is a sustainable model for the British economy. The last time Britain had a current account surplus was in 1983, 29 years ago. In the last 55 years, Britain has had a surplus on its traded goods in only six years. By 2010, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) noted, the deficit in traded goods had reached a staggering level of £100 billion a year. The surplus on services, at £49 billion, could cover only half of that. This year, the deficit is likely to reach £110 billion or £115 billion, or 7% of our GDP.
	A yawning and still increasing deficit of such magnitude cannot continue for long without our foreign creditors, like any bank manager, calling time. The only way to reverse this steady slide towards collapse is by addressing the real causes of decline via a major and sustained revitalisation of our manufacturing capacity. The need for that is unimpeachable. In 1950, our share of world trade was 25%. Today, it is 2.3%. That marks a catastrophic decline in our position as a world leader in manufacturing compared with just 60 years ago, which largely reflects three factors: our gross neglect of industry when other nations were fast recapitalising their manufacturing base; the disastrous assumption under deregulated capitalism that leaving it all to the market would best safeguard Britain’s interest; and the maintenance over most of the period of an over-high exchange rate, putting the City of London’s interest above that of the nation’s industrial base.
	Clearly, it will be difficult to reverse that slide into economic weakness, but we have no alternative but to focus all our efforts on doing so. The first requirement is to stave off any further economic collapse by switching away from a self-defeating deficit-cutting strategy to a public sector-driven jobs and growth strategy. That
	should be funded by diverting a tranche of any future quantitative easing to direct investment in industrial development, by taxing the ultra-rich—that is, the thousand richest people in the UK who, according to
	The Sunday Times 
	rich list, have increased their wealth in the past three years by no less than £155 billion—or, and this will no doubt be preferable to Government Members, by taking advantage of the lowest bank base rate for 300 years by borrowing the relatively small sum of £150 million to secure an investable fund of £30 billion, which could certainly kick-start the economy.
	The real medium-term challenge, of course, is the realignment of the economy away from finance and in favour of manufacturing. It has been talked about regularly but very little has happened. First, as everyone knows, and as other Members have mentioned, there is a continuing shortage of skills, aggravated by a slippage of standards in science and technology education in schools and universities. Secondly, access to finance is a major problem. There is clearly a gap in the market for specialised banks focusing on small businesses, manufacturing services and green investment which needs to be met.
	Thirdly, I believe that we have a national interest in preserving industries and companies that are integral to Britain’s economic survival. The disastrous consequences of leaving Britain’s key industries and strategic companies uninhibitedly exposed to foreign acquisition or private equity buy-outs and asset stripping, which no other advanced industrialised country would allow, are clearly a lesson that I hope has been learned. There are many other things that need to be done, and we need to do them.

Richard Graham: It is a great privilege to contribute to the debate. I thank the three Members who secured it for bringing the matter to the House’s attention and congratulate them on doing so. I have time to touch on only a few details of this important and broad subject. I wish to start by highlighting the fact that, although manufacturing in this country halved over the 13 years of the previous Government, in my county of Gloucestershire we operate at almost double the country’s current economic output for manufacturing, at 20%, which is close to that of Germany. The important ingredient in that success is that we grow things in the part of the county that is rural, which is most of it, and make things in the part that is urban, which is predominantly the city of Gloucester and other leading towns, including Stroud—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) will follow me shortly.
	The key to growing and making things is a belief that they are important productive activities that will generate jobs for our communities and wealth for the nation. Members are right that this debate should not be partisan, but it is unfortunately true to say that almost 6,000 jobs in the business sectors were lost in my constituency over the period of the previous Government, which is tragic. Many were lost in engineering, a sector in which Gloucester has for years led the country, most spectacularly, of course, with the introduction of the world’s first jet engine.
	During that period, apprenticeships all but disappeared. There were champions on the other side of the House—the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) believed in
	apprenticeships, as he still does—but the fact of the matter is that the number of apprenticeships has increased significantly over the past two and a half years. That is typified in my constituency by Gloucestershire Engineering Training, a company that has quadrupled in size through the number of apprentices it trains in its new premises, which were opened earlier this year.
	The first words I spoke in this House, before making my maiden speech, were about apprenticeships, and that was because they are absolutely critical to manufacturing industries. I am talking about manufacturing industries beyond purely engineering; this spreads across a wide variety of sectors. I made my maiden speech wearing a shirt that was made on the Cross in the centre of Gloucester, and every Wall’s ice cream Members eat was made in my constituency. Manufacturing is a broad activity. The fact that we have seen some 3,000 new apprentices start in Gloucester and more than 10,000 start in the county since May 2010 is a huge credit to the coalition Government, to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has responsibility for skills, and especially to his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who famously championed apprenticeships during his time in that role.
	The question today is this: what is the role of Government? We have heard about the many ways the Government can contribute positively, perhaps above all in the commitment to rebalancing the economy away from finance, property and the public sector and towards making and growing things. The export drive that the Prime Minister has led has been rightly congratulated by a number of Members. I am pleased to play a small role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Indonesia, a market of some 250 million people, and one where our trade figures can surely increase rapidly over the next couple of years, in line with targets agreed between the Prime Minister and the President of Indonesia, who was here only two weeks ago.
	There are also important tax policies, of course, and I pay tribute to the Government for reducing corporation tax. Research and development credits are extremely important to manufacturers, too. The visible encouragement given by Government is important psychologically as well, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for visiting the country’s largest independent spectacles manufacturer, Norville, whose product I am wearing on my nose today. Other initiatives should also be mentioned, including the advanced manufacturing supply chain. The Queen Elizabeth engineering prize is an interesting example of how we can help champion innovation.
	The Government have a significant opportunity to rebalance the economy by bringing UK manufacturing back home. Companies that went overseas for cheap labour or relaxed environmental laws have often found that their new location is not as cheap as they had imagined. I strongly echo the statement of the chairman of John Lewis, who said he saw an opportunity for a resurgence of products that are made in Britain. We want to see more of those products.

Neil Carmichael: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), not least because he is absolutely right about the importance of manufacturing in Gloucestershire. One in every
	five jobs in my constituency is in manufacturing and engineering, so, unsurprisingly, I am constantly promoting manufacturing in Stroud.
	I also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford), too. I was struck to learn of his connection with Ruskin college, because Jim Callaghan used that institution as a launch pad for a great debate on education when he was Prime Minister, and rightly so, as we were concerned about the performance of our schools and colleges then, as we are still.
	As Lord Heseltine notes in his report, we have a productivity gap. It takes us 10 hours to do the same thing it would take an American about eight hours to do. We must address that gap, and the Government are therefore right to focus on radical reforms of education, on STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—and on making sure our colleges are up to speed in responding to the needs of business.
	As the Prime Minister has said, all Governments—including all Government Departments—need to think about economic growth. To reiterate Lord Heseltine’s point, we need a grand strategy to concentrate the mind on the needs of our industry and our businesses, in order to make sure we get that growth.
	Infrastructure is crucial, and it has rightly frequently been mentioned in our debate. We are going to take three years to decide whether we want a new airport, whereas the Germans are building one in Berlin now. It may well be taking a little longer than usual, and it may well be costing them a little more money than they expected, but the point is that they are building one. We need to sweep away some of our planning restrictions and some of our reticence to make such big and bold decisions, because we need to make those decisions.
	Let me give an example of why that is important. I recently went to Leipzig in eastern Germany. I had visited the city as a student almost 30 years ago, when it was an economic wasteland. It was a disaster zone; I could see that whichever way I looked. Now in Leipzig there is a huge factory making Porsche cars. They are great cars—they are so good that I cannot afford to buy one. The factory’s supply chain is very effective and tight, and it is supported by an infrastructure that enables that supply chain to work. I asked the managing director if he could produce a map of the factory’s supply chain for me, and he did so right away. It served to demonstrate the value of a good supply chain and the importance in that regard of good infrastructure. We must learn these lessons, and we must be bold enough to take the appropriate action.
	It seems to me that Lord Heseltine was right about localism, to the extent that we need to make sure that local structures have the necessary capacity. I am very impressed with our local enterprise partnerships. They are the right approach and are certainly a lot better than regional development agencies, but we have to make sure that all of them are up to standard and know what they need to do. Before we give them a huge bucketful of money, they must demonstrate to us that they are capable of identifying the right firms and making sure that they understand the needs of those firms. That is about knowing the skills requirements, knowing the skills capacities available and matching the difference. I hope LEPs will start to do that.
	I finish with an important appeal. We should not forget the value of our technology. Recognising the added value in our product is important. We must think forward, not backwards. We should not be manufacturing what we manufactured before. We should manufacture products that are needed now and will be needed in the future. That is where the technology matters.

Iain Wright: This has been an important, passionate and, dare I say it, industrious debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for choosing the topic, which is very much in the long-term economic interests of our country and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) for the manner in which they advanced their arguments. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle).
	I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speech that we heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford), as one by-election victor to another. I have known him for a very long time and he has always been passionate about manufacturing, industry and his local area. He was extremely gracious to his predecessor, as the whole House will have recognised. He mentioned his passion for co-operatives and co-operation. That is a necessary value in an industrial strategy. Industrial policy is often simplified or dismissed as picking winners, but it is fair to say that in my hon. Friend the people of Corby have definitely picked a winner.
	I will be as quick as I can, because there is an awful lot to get through after such an important debate. It is clear from this afternoon that there is a welcome consensus about the need for an industrial strategy with manufacturing at its heart. We in the north-east know all about the importance of manufacturing. Both advanced and emerging nations are repositioning or developing their industrial and manufacturing capabilities—we have just heard from the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) about Leipzig—with the aim of enhancing comparative advantage for their key sectors and maximising opportunities for growth.
	We should not blindly follow our competitors into the latest economic fashion. We cannot replicate off the shelf the German model, still less the Singapore model, but it is clear that in the 21st century global economy, business and Governments are working together to ensure that potential is realised. We can exploit our values, our tradition and heritage and our current sectoral strengths to create a bespoke one nation industrial strategy, helping all regions achieve their potential.
	As the CBI stated only this month:
	“Rebalancing the UK economy must consist of boosting our productive potential, which means reviving business investment and trade as key drivers of growth. The debate is no longer over whether the UK needs an industrial strategy, but about what form this should take.”
	We would all agree with that. The message from today’s debate is clear: we need to see clear leadership on an industrial strategy. I therefore fully applaud what Lord Heseltine said in his review when he stated:
	“The Government must have a clear blueprint for the future to support wealth creation. This approach should then be applied without exception across the whole of government.”
	I support the TUC when it said:
	“If we are to move forward, government, industry and unions must agree between them what a renaissance for manufacturing actually means. . . a strong manufacturing sector, across a variety of high skill, high value industries, is both achievable and desirable”.
	The CBI said this month that we should
	“adopt a shared vision . . . for the UK economy, with the government reporting back regularly on how this vision is being delivered”.
	We would all agree.
	We hear warm words from this Government. They often talk a good game, but their actions fail to match their rhetoric, and this country’s industrial potential suffers as a result. So I welcome the Secretary of State’s 16 speeches on the need for an industrial strategy; I just wish he would implement one. I fully support what the Prime Minister said in 2010 in his CBI conference speech—that the Government should be
	“getting behind those industries where Britain already enjoys competitive advantage. All over the world governments are identifying dynamic sectors in their economy and working strategically to strengthen them”.
	He said something similar only this week at the 2012 CBI conference:
	“Government gets it…To have a proper industrial strategy to get behind the growth engines of the future.”
	I fully agree. Yet in response to the speech the director general was forced to ask, “Where’s the beef?”
	I welcome the honest appraisal by the Secretary of State in his leaked letter of February 2012 in which he said that the Government do not have
	“a compelling vision of where the country is heading…and a clear and confident message about how we will earn our living in the future”.
	However, I remain anxious that only last month Lord Heseltine felt the need to say in his report:
	“The message I keep hearing is that the UK does not have a strategy for growth and wealth creation.”
	Earlier this month, the CBI stated the position even more bluntly than that.

George Freeman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Wright: No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I have a lot to get through.
	The CBI said that
	“the current hands-off approach to growth is failing to provide the confidence necessary for businesses to compete for the biggest opportunities out there”.
	Most concerning was the verdict of Sir John Parker, one of Britain’s pre-eminent industrialists as chairman of Anglo American and president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, when he said last month:
	“It has been two years since this Government came to power but it still has not set out a vision for Britain’s industrial future. There has been no leadership from the top—and by that I mean David Cameron—which has given a signal to society that Britain values industrial activity.”

George Freeman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Wright: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am keen to make progress.
	Business is unconvinced that the Government’s warm words have materialised into firm leadership and tangible action. People want to see action and a sense of urgency,
	but they have not seen that. Will the Minister at least acknowledge this and outline his plans to do something about it?

George Freeman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Wright: Since the hon. Gentleman is being very persistent and because this is about a long-term vision, of course I will give way.

George Freeman: I am extremely grateful; I will be very brief. This time last year, the Prime Minister announced the strategy for the life sciences, which was warmly welcomed across industry—not least by GlaxoSmithKline, which then announced a £500 million investment in advanced manufacturing in the north-west—and has been lauded internationally. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that at least in that sector the Prime Minister personally and this Government, including the Secretary of State, have set out exactly the leadership that he is asking for?

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about consensus. If we are to have an industrial strategy, we must ensure that it has a long-term strategic focus. Political and business cycles are not aligned—we often have a four or five-year cycle while businesses, certainly in the manufacturing industries, tend to have a 30-year or 40-year cycle—and it would be good to have as much consensus and policy certainty as possible. I hope that this debate has demonstrated that.
	Manufacturers’ organisation the EEF has called for
	“An industrial strategy”
	that
	“needs to endure beyond the latest political fad or any one political party. All our politicians need to recognise the value of having a clear vision, gearing the whole of government to delivering that vision, and setting clear accountability arrangements.”
	I fully agree.
	In certain sectors, there has been a degree of continuity of policy. The previous Labour Government set up the Automotive Council UK. The current Government have continued with that, and we have seen substantial investments in the automotive industry as a result. We fully recognise and welcome that approach. I have said to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is now in his place, that his formation of the Aerospace Growth Partnership is very welcome, and I would like a future Labour Government to pledge to continue to provide certainty for that key industrial sector. We have seen success in close relationships between Government and business in a number of sectors; the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) mentioned life sciences. Will the Minister say whether the Government plan to replicate that across other key industrial sectors such as chemicals, the construction industry and pharmaceuticals?
	There is concern about long-term policy certainty, which investors in manufacturing require. Energy policy has rightly been mentioned a lot in this debate. In the summer, the CBI said in its report on maximising the potential of green business that
	“while business wants to keep up the pace, they are equally clear that the government’s current approach is missing the mark, with policy uncertainty, complexity and the lack of a holistic strategy damaging investment prospects.”
	Will the Minister acknowledge that such policy reversals are damaging to business investment, especially for manufacturing? What is he going to do to make sure that he can put arrangements in place within Whitehall to minimise the policy reversals and procrastinations in decision making that are damaging to our long-term industrial prospects?
	In the remaining time that I have, I will focus on two important points. The first is that the key to the implementation of a long-term industrial strategy must be an emphasis on business policy across Government; it must not reside just in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Other Departments cannot wash their hands of growth.
	As we have heard, energy policy has profound implications for our manufacturing base. The manner in which the carbon floor price is implemented will have significant repercussions on our industrial competitiveness. Our aviation and transport policies also have an impact on our competitiveness. Local government can be a driver of economic regeneration and development. The Ministry of Defence should be working closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that we have a defence industrial strategy. Of particular relevance to the Minister is the close link, which we have heard about today, between an industrial strategy, skills and what is being taught in schools. I recall that the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) made an intervention on careers advice. We must see clearer signs that there is proper co-ordination on business and industry across Whitehall. What is the Minister doing to implement the Heseltine recommendations on creating better co-ordination, accountability and commitment across Whitehall on wealth creation?
	My second point relates to procurement. The Government intervene in the markets by buying things every single day, and yet Government procurement does not maximise Britain’s industrial capability or enhance the UK supply chain. What else will the Minister do to push for smarter procurement across Government to help British industry, and to encourage innovation and create jobs in this country?
	We believe that there is a need for an intelligent industrial strategy. This debate has shown that our industrial and manufacturing sectors have huge potential in the 21st century, but that to flourish, they require active co-operation. The whole House seems to have supported that today. I hope that the Minister will pledge similar support.

Matthew Hancock: Debates in this House are often described by those who speak in them as important, but there is something important about today’s debate: on this subject, cross-party unity matters. There has been clear unity across all three parties that have been represented in this debate. Almost everybody stuck to that tone, until a brief period at the end. I will not push the point about who got us into this mess and I will not ask under which Government the number of private sector jobs in the west midlands fell, because it is important, for substantive reasons, that there is a cross-party approach
	to industrial strategy. This debate has shown the passion of Members and of the Associate Parliamentary Manufacturing Group.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with the Minister that there should be cross-party consensus, provided that that consensus is on the right side. If everybody is wrong, we will drive ourselves further into difficulty.

Matthew Hancock: That is a profound point about the need to avoid groupthink, with which I profoundly agree.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) argued that we need to identify the best. He was passionate about enterprise and I heard his message. He will know that I am a huge supporter of enterprise zones.
	I enjoyed listening to the historical debate between the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who are continuing their debate as I speak.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) asked a series of questions and brought his huge experience to bear, especially in relation to defence. The defence growth partnership is a BIS-led cross-Government partnership, which the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), leads. On the specific point about R and D tax credits moving to above the line, the Treasury has consulted on that and is deciding on the detail. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me with the answer on the joint strike fighter, which I will come to in a moment.
	Everybody in the House was struck by the fluent and impressive speech by the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford). He described passionately his membership of the Co-operative party as well as the Labour party. My grandfather was part of the co-operative movement. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who takes a lead on such issues among Government Members.
	The hon. Member for Corby advanced the argument for the living wage powerfully. He spoke of the need to ensure that domestic British people have the skills to take the jobs that are available. Although more than 1 million private sector jobs have been created under this Government, we still have a huge amount of work to do. As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my prime motivation is to ensure that British people have the skills and ability to do whatever it takes to get the growing number of jobs available. The hon. Member for Corby spoke with great passion, and all those present in the debate will have clocked that—well, let me put it like this: the attitude he showed to the Chief Whip on the Opposition Front Bench, and his ability to ingratiate himself with her, shows that he may not be on the Back Benches for long.
	An industrial policy is central to achieving the goal of growth and enterprise, and there is broad consensus on that from the CBI to the TUC, as well as across the House. The reason for that is simple. Any Government in a mature economy has an industrial policy—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and
	my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) argued, a Government cannot choose not to have one. We have an industrial strategy but the question is whether we have it by default or design.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford praised the Dutch system, from which we have much to learn. In my few weeks in this job I have recognised and warmly welcomed the constructive approach taken by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West to chairing the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. He argued for a cross-departmental approach, and the growth committee on which I sit is an important part of that. He also argued for a cross-party approach, and not only do I agree with that, but I think hon. Members have demonstrated such an approach today. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s realism and ability to accept failures on the part of all past Governments. As he said, manufacturing halved as a percentage of GDP, and the passionate argument about that and the history around it was also put forward by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher).
	Crucially, an industrial strategy looks both at and across sectors, and we must ensure that we allow for the challenge of sectors that are yet to be dreamed of. Let me touch on four cross-cutting themes, as well as on sectors such as the automotive industry, life sciences and aerospace, in which we are pushing rapidly ahead with the publication of individual papers.

George Freeman: On the point about convergence, does the Minister agree that one of the most exciting things in life sciences is the way that medical, food and clean environmental technologies are beginning to merge? I recently visited a plant in Norfolk that converts agricultural waste into fuel for powering Lotuses made in Norfolk. That is a powerful illustration of convergence.

Matthew Hancock: Yes indeed, and across supply chains too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) powerfully said, it is vital that we bring whole supply chains together when thinking about the sectoral approach. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Some sectors will do well on their own; others need a long-term strategic partnership. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) called for a document that brings things together in each sector, and that is happening.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Briefly, and on a genuinely cross-party consensual basis, will the Minister update the House on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) about energy-intensive industries such as Tata Steel? Those vital employers and big economic generators have a massive impact on the supply chain, but they consistently say that they do not have a strategy that deals with their energy costs as well as everything else.

Matthew Hancock: The Government have an energy-intensive industries approach, and an energy Bill will soon be published that I hope will provide some long-term certainty.
	Let me return to the four cross-cutting areas. The first is finance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) spoke fluently about the funding for lending scheme that lowers the cost of
	funding. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) called for a business investment bank, which is happening, and the green investment bank is already operating and making loans.
	Secondly, and close to my heart in the industrial strategy, are skills. The call went out for more employer focus on skills, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made a passionate case for apprenticeships. I strongly agree, and I urge all Members to engage with the employer ownership pilot that was published on Monday which is about looking ahead. For example, we know that with Crossrail, High Speed 2 and broadband, more tunnelling skills will required in the future. We now have a pipeline for those tunnelling skills—a pipeline for pipelines.
	As the hon. Member for Coventry North West discussed, the third thing we need is more intelligent procurement. This Government have a more intelligent approach to procurement, and I hope it will become more intelligent still. Crucially, our national infrastructure plan identifies 500 projects. Some £70 billion of future contracts have been planned and published across 13 different sectors. We are also trying to speed up procurement.
	On technology, we have protected the science budget and are focusing on eight key technologies. Links to universities are vital. Catapult centres will accelerate that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot spoke about Surrey satellites. That example should go out throughout the country. Turning links with universities into business reality is critical to our future success.
	I commend the cross-party approach. I urge people to look at the fact that all three parties are coming together to promote the long-term industrial strategy we need, which I commend to the House.

Gordon Birtwistle: I congratulate my two colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—on securing the debate. I also congratulate the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his maiden speech. I remember doing mine two and half years ago. I hope he is as enthusiastic in two and a half years as I am now. It does not take long for House to kick the strength out of people.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) put the debate into perspective when he said that, in the past 60 years, we have gone from being the major supplier to the world to being a minor supplier. In 1958—nearly 60 years ago—I turned up on my first day as an apprentice engineer at a company in Accrington that employed 5,000 people to produce textile machinery that was sold around the world. It is no longer there, and has not been for many years. I have been involved in manufacturing almost throughout the period he described.
	We can get growth going in numerous ways. The one thing the Chancellor can do in two weeks’ time is give 100% capital allowances for investment in capital, buildings and the like for the manufacturing sector. As I understand it, the major companies in this country, and companies from abroad who wish to invest, have £70 billion stashed in banks. One hundred per cent. capital allowances for just two years would boost investment and the money would be spent in the UK.
	Another major problem is the supply chain—it is a problem in the automotive and aerospace industries. It needs to be resolved. To get rid of our balance of payments deficit, we need to increase exports by 15% and reduce imports by 15%. It does not sound like a big task to export 15% more and import 15% less. I have asked companies whether they are able to do so. The vast majority in the aerospace industry say, “Yes, we can. We’ve got order books for 25 years ahead, but we do not have a supply chain to feed our order book, so we are having to import. We would really like to manufacture in the UK so we have our own supply chain.” We need to resolve that, but we also need the staff to work in the supply chain—the young people to work in the supply chains of our top industries, such as the aerospace, automotive and chemical industries, are not coming through. The supply chain gap is a major problem.
	We have a major skills gap. I visited Rolls-Royce in Derby only last week and asked to see its apprenticeships training programme. I was delighted to hear that it takes on 40 extra apprentices every year not for Rolls-Royce, but for the supply chain—companies that supply Rolls-Royce but that cannot afford to take on apprentices. Those small companies want high-class apprentices and to deliver the skills of the future, and Rolls-Royce takes them on at its own expense so that its supply chain is secure.
	Hon. Members mentioned careers advice. I am horrified when I go to schools in my constituency and hear about the careers advice that is given to young people. Basically, it is nothing—no careers advice that is of any use is given. Some young people would be interested in going into manufacturing, but nobody advises them what it is about. It is high time that the Department for Education looked into careers advice in schools. We need young people who really know what manufacturing is about.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, in respect of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—(Mark Lancaster.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Rohingya Community

Michael Meacher: I wish to present this petition to the House, which has nearly 1,000 signatures, and is from Mr Ali and residents of Coldhurst and other parts of Oldham. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Mr Ali and residents of Coldhurst,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that as a result of a recent attack on the Rohingya ethnic minority in June 2012 there is now a humanitarian crisis in Burma and that more than 90,000 Rohingya have been displaced; further that the Petitioners believe that since 1962 no Rohingya have been issued with birth certificates which renders them aliens to their own country and means they have no citizen’s rights and that innocent civilians are being targeted because of their ethnic background; further that the Petitioners believe that this is a modern ethnic cleansing and that it has been described as such by many independent journalists and NGOs and that the Rohingya require relief and aid. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to cease its economic ties with Burma and to assist in providing aid for the displaced Rohingya of the region.
	And the Petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	[P001138]

NHS TRUST MERGER (DORSET)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark  Lancaster .)

Christopher Chope: May I first thank Mr Speaker for selecting this subject for this evening’s debate? I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) are here. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West has himself sent a submission to the Office of Fair Trading in relation to the proposed merger of the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust with Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
	This is not just an important subject for our locality. It raises issues of principle, because this is the first time it has been proposed that two separate NHS foundation trusts merge. The OFT says that there a lot of other proposals in the pipeline. It is therefore important that the Minister has the opportunity to comment on what seems a bizarre procedure, certainly in relation to this matter.
	I have to express an uncomfortable truth about tonight’s debate. I have always trusted the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as being open, transparent and honest in its dealings with me and the public at large, and my constituents appreciate the excellent services provided at the two hospitals. However, it is fundamental to public confidence in hospitals that there should be transparency and openness in dealings with the public. Indeed, the requirement for such transparency and openness is set out in the documents on which the foundations trusts are based. The constitution of the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospital NHS foundation trust describes it as a “public benefit corporation”, and paragraph 6.5 states:
	“In conducting its affairs, the Trust shall have regard to the need to provide information to members and conduct its affairs in an open and accessible way.”
	As I shall demonstrate, in relation to the merger proposal, quite the reverse has happened.
	I also refer my hon. Friend the Minister to another trust document, “Authorisation of the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust”. It was approved on 1 April 2005 by Monitor. Paragraph 25, headed “Information given to Parliament and to Members of Parliament”, reads:
	“In addition to any statutory requirements, the Chairman, Chief Executive or any other person giving information to Parliament or to a Member of Parliament on behalf of a Trust shall ensure that they comply with the standards expected of Ministers of the Crown with regard to openness of dealings, the giving of accurate and truthful information and the correction of any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Any question submitted to the Trust by a Member of Parliament shall be responded to by the Trust within the same timescale as that expected of Ministers with respect to Parliamentary questions.”
	In due course, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will see that the trust seems to be totally in breach of that paragraph.
	The trust has embarked on a merger proposal. Obviously, with any such proposal, people will wonder, “What is the purpose of the merger? Why do we need a merger? What will be the benefits and consequences?” I found
	out that the trust had produced a long document setting out the benefits. In order that I could respond to the Office of Fair Trading inquiry, I thought it would be helpful to see the benefits case, and I eventually received an almost totally redacted version, dated September 2012. The section on the key patient benefits to cardiology starts on page 29, but almost every line on every page is completely redacted. The same is the case with the sections on acute general surgery, haematology and maternity services—indeed, the only word that is not redacted in the latter section, which is four pages long, is “maternity”.
	That is scarcely credible. It is farcical and makes a complete mockery of any public consultation or involvement. The OFT has the task of trying to find out from local people and third parties whether they believe that patient benefits flowing from the merger will outweigh the loss of choice and competition that will inevitably result, but the basic information needed to reach a judgment is not available. That is why I am in a state of limbo. We only had 14 working days to send in our submissions to the OFT, so I sent in mine on the basis of as much information as I could gather on the grapevine, plus some speculation, pointing out how aggrieved I felt, on behalf of my constituents, that the information needed was not made available.
	The OFT is now considering the issue and will, I am told, announce its decision by 8 January 2013. I hope that at the end of this debate the Minister will say to me that, on behalf of the Government, he will ask the Office of Fair Trading, as I have, to refer the matter to the Competition Commission for a full inquiry, because it raises lots of issues. It also makes it difficult for the Office of Fair Trading if the information provided to it cannot be tested in public.
	That is where we are at the moment. I received that heavily redacted document, and instead of anything else I was then given a set of slides, which caused me to raise a number of questions. I put them in writing to the hospital and at the end of last week, after about a fortnight, I received replies to them. However, the letter I received, dated 16 November, starts:
	“Dear Chris
	Strictly private and confidential. Not to be disclosed without express prior written consent of both Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust”.
	I therefore cannot disclose what the document says—I think I can disclose that it exists and I can tell the House what some of the questions I asked were, but the answers cannot be shared. One of the questions was:
	“Why do services have to be reduced in the absence of a merger ‘in order to stay viable’?”,
	but I am not allowed to publish the answer. I also asked:
	“In the event of no merger, which services will no longer be provided locally which will thereby necessitate patients having to travel further?”,
	and so on. I asked all those questions, but the answers—if they can be described as such—cannot be made available. Surely that must a breach of the terms of the constitution to which I referred earlier.
	The process is far from satisfactory, but let me turn to the substance. After a considerable amount of digging and discussion with local people, I found out why there is this conspiracy of secret dealings. The Royal
	Bournemouth and Christchurch Foundation Trust knows that it is under an obligation, under section 242 of the National Health Service Act 2006,
	“to engage and/or formally consult when considering changes to the way in which services are provided or the range of services they intend to provide”.
	The trust wants a service reconfiguration, but it wants to close down the options before any public discussion of it takes place. The trust effectively wants to pre-empt discussion by using the cloak of the merger proposal. As a unified trust—a monolithic monopoly supplier—it would then effectively be able to dictate terms to the Government and the local people. For example, reducing the Royal Bournemouth hospital’s accident and emergency service from a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week service to one operating between 8 o’clock in the morning and 10 o’clock in the evening could be presented as a fait accompli, as could closing down the maternity service, which is a midwife-led service, and transferring it to Poole because Poole is desperately short of money.
	One of the issues behind all this is that for years the Royal Bournemouth has prided itself on wanting to be the hospital of choice for local people, but then Poole hospital got into financial difficulties—indeed, it did not have its accounts properly accepted for 2010. It seems that the only way Poole hospital can get out of those difficulties is by merging, because then it would have a higher prudential borrowing limit, which would enable it to carry out improvements. However, my point is this: what is the benefit for the people using the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals at the moment?
	There has also been an attempt to try to intimidate people and prevent them from participating in any public discussion. I have had a number of discussions with people involved in the governance of the hospital, and with other local residents. I shall not quote from all the letters that I have received, but I do have one letter that I thought would be worth quoting. It is from a lady who says:
	“I am very impressed by your investigations into the planned merger, which once completed will suddenly and too late wake the slumbering populace up. I really wonder who the NHS thinks they are there for—it seems only, sometimes, for themselves and their accountants. And to issue our MP with heavily redacted information is bordering on Stalinism.”
	There is a notice up now in the local hospital, saying that there is legal advice against disclosing the benefits case, and restating that no decisions have been made regarding the reconfiguration. But the issue is not decisions; it is about proposals, and it is the proposals about which we should be having a discussion. If I asked my independent foundation trust for information, I should not have to receive a letter back from the two foundation trusts jointly. They should be looking at the matter from the point of view of the interests of each of their localities, rather than having a joint exercise, which is squeezing out the public interest.
	The notice continues:
	“The benefits submitted to the OFT have had full engagement with lead clinicians across both hospital trusts around how the new organisation could move forward”.
	I do not quite know what full engagement means, but obviously if there is no public declaration of what the benefits are, nobody is in a position to know whether
	it reflects their views. That is one of the fundamental reasons why we support the principles of accountability in this House.
	I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will deal with the issue of accountability. I am hopeful also that, in looking at the whole case, he will have regard to the comments that he made when he responded to a debate on acute and emergency services on 26 October. On that occasion, our hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) was arguing for nationally led service reconfiguration, but the Minister pointed out that changes to services in Manchester and London, which had been cited, were
	“driven at a local level by good clinical leadership and effective engagement of local communities.”
	It is the latter part of that which is totally lacking currently in Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole. In the same debate, my hon. Friend emphasised the need for plans for service change to be developed in a way that
	“gives confidence to local communities.”
	He also emphasised that change
	“should encourage choice and availability”
	and identified the danger that in the more rural parts of the country,
	“bigger and better centres will often reduce choice”
	and result in people having to travel
	“long distances to receive their care.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 1271-2.]
	The Minister also referred to the advent of clinical commissioning groups taking over from primary care trusts, but there has been no engagement between those groups and Members of Parliament about what is being proposed in Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole.
	That is where we are at the moment. I think it is very sad that there has been that breakdown in communication between the Members of Parliament and the trusts. The whole purpose of the trusts—I was delighted when the Royal Bournemouth was one of the first foundation trusts, established in 2005—was that they should be independent and could not be interfered with by Government, but would be accountable to local people. But I am afraid that the local people, even those who are serving in positions on the board, are feeling that they are being squeezed out of the debate, being told that they must not say anything for fear of prejudicing the outcome. Surely this very important proposed merger should be the subject of a public debate, and before we get to the stage of a merger the proposals for the reconfiguration of services, which are obviously being actively discussed and debated by the chief executives of the two trusts, should be put before the general public for their views. I do not think that my constituents are very keen on the idea that their accident and emergency unit, which they use, at the Royal Bournemouth should be closed after 10 o’clock at night and not reopen until 8 o’clock in the morning. Likewise, I do not think that they are very keen on the idea of the maternity service being relocated from Bournemouth to Poole.
	Anyone who asks questions about the merger is told that if it does not happen, Poole hospital will close. A similar threat was made to me on Monday when I went to the hospital. I was told that if the merger did not go through, Christchurch hospital would close. That is completely at odds with a letter that was sent to one of
	my constituents who had expressed concern about the changes at Christchurch hospital. In that letter, the hospital stated that, because of the financial strength of the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the future of Christchurch hospital was assured. That letter was received by my constituent earlier this month, yet the chief executive told me on Monday that if the merger went ahead, the proposal for Christchurch would be abandoned and Christchurch hospital might have to be sold. What an extraordinary state of affairs we are in! I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will be able to allay some of the concerns in our locality.

Daniel Poulter: It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing it, and on being a strong advocate for the needs of his constituents and of patients throughout his part of the world. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who are also in the Chamber. They, too, are strong advocates for the patients they represent, and I know that their constituents are grateful to them for that.
	It is right to highlight the importance of having a good working relationship between Members of Parliament and their local hospital trusts. It is never desirable for any hospital to embark on local service changes of any kind without properly engaging with the local Members of Parliament. In this case, we are talking about a merger, rather than a service reconfiguration; there is an important distinction between the two, which I will come to in a moment. Nevertheless, from what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has said, it does not sound as though the local hospital trust has engaged with him in a way that we would all consider desirable, and I am sure that it will consider that in its future relations with MPs.
	That point was strongly made when my hon. Friend read out the heavily redacted document. There is freedom of information, and certain issues can quite rightly be exempted from freedom of information requests under statute. However, to present a document bearing only the heading “Maternity” is not in the spirit of co-operative and collaborative working with Members of Parliament or in the spirit of being as open and transparent as we would like. I am sure that he has already raised these issues locally, but I would also like to place on record my concern at what he has told the House. It is important that MPs, as strong advocates for our constituents and the patients in our constituencies, should always be engaged at an early stage when decisions of this magnitude are being made.
	My hon. Friend paid tribute to the dedicated front-line staff at the hospitals in Poole and Bournemouth. It is worth highlighting that some very good things have been happening in both trusts. At Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, a life-saving service that treats heart attack patients within 60 minutes is now available 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the Royal Bournemouth hospital. It treats heart attack patients from across Dorset, Hampshire and Wiltshire. Also, a new combined acute and rehabilitation
	stroke unit opened in 2012. It is designed to improve the experience and outcomes of stroke patients by providing specialist services, with a particular focus on the rehabilitation of patients, which is an important part of stroke care.

Christopher Chope: I am glad that the Minister cited those examples, but are they not examples of how independent trusts can innovate and thereby create beneficial change rather than have a monolithic monopoly? Surely we would not have so much innovation if all our trusts were merged into one.

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is right that trusts—in their own right, or when they are merged together as they were historically over the river at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ and at the medical school of Guy’s, King’s and St. Thomas’ of which I am a graduate—can gain and improve the quality of care available to patients without losing their distinctness. Services are offered on each site, but at the same time they can add to the services they provide to patients in the totality. I believe my hon. Friend is right to say that these innovations have come from the independence and the good work of his local hospital, but I also believe there can be distinct advantages from hospitals coming together as well. The common purpose is making sure that good local service provision is maintained, while services of clinical excellence are also developed, further improving the offer to patients—not just in those towns, but throughout the area.
	I want to highlight, and not leave out, some of the good things happening at Poole hospital, as it would be wrong for me, having highlighted a number of good developments at the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, not to mention them. At Poole hospital, the standard of care for cancer patients has been rated as among the best in the country in a national survey. The 2011-12 national cancer patient experience survey found that 94% of patients rated their care as “excellent” or “very good”, giving Poole the highest score recorded among participating trusts. I know all Members, as constituency Members, would feel very proud of that hospital’s achievements.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes this Government’s investment in the NHS, even in very difficult economic times, as we put an extra £12.5 billion into NHS services over the lifetime of this Parliament. I am sure we all agree that that is a good thing.
	What is the current position? Let me address some of my hon. Friend’s points. As to the proposals by the foundation trusts in Bournemouth and Poole, I appreciate that when any changes to local NHS services are mooted, people can become anxious and feelings can run high. However, I must be very clear to my hon. Friend that there is no formal role for Ministers or the Department of Health in approving mergers between two foundation trusts. I fully appreciate his concern to ensure that there is appropriate engagement and consultation on any proposals for service changes that may affect his constituents. I have already put on record some of my concerns about the process and engagement so far, which I think we would all accept is not ideal.

Christopher Chope: I was not asking the Minister to have a role in approving the merger or otherwise. What I asked him to do, on behalf of the Government, was to say to
	the Office of Fair Trading that this is an issue of sufficient significance that it should be referred to the Competition Commission.

Daniel Poulter: If my hon. Friend will be patient with me for a few moments, I will address that point a little later.
	In acknowledging the understandable anxiety that can be stoked when any discussions about hospital services take place, it is important to highlight the fact that, as we saw over the river at Guy’s and St. Thomas’, although there was some good preservation of the individual and distinct offers to the local populations of the two institutions in their own right, by coming together they have been better together and provided better services.
	One of the big problems we face in the NHS is concern about putting more money into front-line care and about cutting back on waste and bureaucracy. Clearly, if the administration across two trusts can be shared, it will free up more money to be diverted and put into what we all care about—front-line patient care.
	Let me put on record once again that the trusts have clearly stated that this is not about the reconfiguration of clinical services. That is quite distinct. My hon. Friend was quite right to mention some of the points I raised in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) about the important and distinct challenges faced in rural constituencies, and the fact that service reconfiguration challenges are very different in rural areas where there are longer distances to travel. As I have said, however, this is not about reconfiguring services, but about trusts merging and seeking what I think we would consider to be potentially desirable
	results, such as economies of scale and a reduction in unnecessary administrative burdens when possible. I think that, although the process and the approach taken to engagement with my hon. Friend and other Members of Parliament have not been ideal, some very positive elements have emerged from the discussion.
	As my hon. Friend said, stringent tests would be applied to reconfiguration if it were on the table. The criteria would be strong public and patient engagement, consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice, a clear clinical evidence base, and support for proposals from clinical commissioners. Clinicians should always lead reconfiguration challenges, but today we are not talking about reconfiguration; we are talking about a hospital merger. It is the first of its kind to be proposed between foundation trusts in the country, and in that respect it is new territory for the NHS. There are distinct rules, including, as my hon. Friend said, referral of the case to the Office of Fair Trading.
	The OFT’s role in reviewing the merger will be to establish whether there is a realistic prospect that it will result in a substantial lessening of competition. I am sure that it will also consider the issues of rurality and the choice of services available to patients. Should it refer the matter to the Competition Commission, which it has a right to do if it has concerns, the commission’s role will be to conduct an in-depth investigation, and to decide whether the merger does indeed represent a substantial lessening of competition and choice.
	Concern has been expressed about the rurality of surrounding areas, and about the fact that there are long distances between hospital trusts. That may—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).